COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Germany, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Luxembourg, 13.7.2022  SWD(2022) 505 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report        Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report          The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  German  justice  system  continues  to  experience  a  very  high  level  of  perceived  judicial 
independence and performs overall efficiently. The reinstatement of experience requirements 
among the selection criteria for presiding judges at the Federal courts has been welcomed by 
the judiciary. The Government intends to present a new reform to the powers of Ministers of 
Justice to issue instructions to prosecutors in individual cases after a draft bill by the Federal 
Ministry of Justice failed to advance in the last  legislative period. An extension of the Pact 
for the Rule of  Law  to  provide further resources for the judiciary  has  been announced, and 
the  Länder  have  requested  the  Federal  Government  to  start  negotiations  on  this.  However, 
long-term  challenges  remain  regarding  recruitments  and  the  level  of  salaries  of  judges. 
Efforts  to  improve  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system  continue  and  would  also  be 
addressed in the new Pact for the Rule of Law. 

Germany  is  still  in  the  process  of  updating  its  strategic  framework  for  the  prevention  of 
corruption  in  the  federal  administration  as  well  as  its  whistleblower  protection  rules. 
However,  a  number  of  reforms  are  planned  for  the  prevention  of  corruption,  including  to 
further enhance transparency in decision making. Among the planned initiatives of the new 
coalition  agreement  are  the  introduction  of  a  legislative  footprint  on  lobbying  during  the 
legislative process, and the revision of political party financing rules. Shortcomings remain in 
the regulation  of asset  disclosures for parliamentarians  and  government  officials,  especially 
with  regard  to  fragmented  and  inconsistent  post-employment  rules  and  cooling-off  periods. 
Following  a  significant  rise  in  the  detected  financial  damage  caused  by  corruption  in 
Germany  in  2020,  with  a  stark  rise  of  bribery  targeting  the  public  sector,  Germany  has 
increased criminal sanctions for bribery of members of Parliament. Germany has a very solid 
record of the prosecution of individuals who commit foreign bribery, but no legal provisions 
for criminal liability of companies are in place. 

Germany  continues  to  enjoy  a  high  level  of  media  freedom  and  pluralism.  There  is  a  high 
degree  of  independence  of  the  media  and  relevant  supervisory  authorities.  This  includes  a 
strongly pluralistic framework of national and regional public service broadcasters as well as 
a  well-established  Press  Council.  Transparency  of  media  ownership  is  ensured.  Journalist 
representatives  point  to  room  for  improvement  regarding  the  framework  for  the  access  to 
information by journalists, an issue which is also included in the coalition agreement. Länder 
authorities, the Press Council and other media stakeholders are currently discussing an update 
of  the  existing  principles  of  conduct  for  the  media  and  the  police  to  address  the  safety  of 
journalists during protests.  

As regards checks and balances, plans to improve the transparency and inclusiveness of law-
making have been announced, which could address challenges identified by stakeholders in 
in this respect. Restrictive measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic have continued to be 
subject  to  constitutional  and  judicial  review  as  well  as  parliamentary  scrutiny.  The 
appointment procedure for the head of the Anti-Discrimination Agency, who has remained in 
functions  ad  interim  for  the  past  four  years,  has  been  reformed.  Civil  society  continues  to 
experience challenges due to the uncertainty of rules related to their tax-exempt status. While 
the Government has announced an intention to reform the legal framework related to the tax 
exempt status, no concrete proposal has been tabled so far.  

1 

 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

It is recommended to Germany to: 

  Continue efforts to provide adequate resources for the justice system as part of the new 
pact of the rule of law, including on the level of salaries for judges, taking into account 
European standards on resources and remuneration for the justice system.  

  Proceed with plans to introduce a ‘legislative footprint’ to allow for the monitoring and 
tracing  of  all  interest  representatives  who  seek  to  influence  and  contribute  to  specific 
legislative texts. 

  Strengthen the existing rules on revolving doors by increasing consistency of the different 
applicable rules, the transparency of authorisations for future employment of high ranking 
public  officials,  and  the  length  of  cooling-off  periods  for  federal  ministers  and  federal 
parliamentary state secretaries. 

  Take  forward  the  plan  to  create  a  legal  basis  for  a  right  to  information  of  the  press  as 
regards  federal  authorities,  taking  into  account  European  standards  on  access  to 
documents. 

  Take forward the plan to adapt the tax-exempt status for non-profit organisations with a 
view  to  address  the  challenges  which  the  currently  applicable  rules  present  for  their 
operation in practice, taking into account European standards on funding for civil society 
organisations. 

2 

 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The court system in Germany is structured in a federal manner. Jurisdiction is exercised by 
federal  courts  and  by  the  courts  of  the  sixteen  federal  states  (‘Länder’).  The  main  share  of 
competence and workload regarding the administration of justice lies with the  Länder1. The 
court  structure  is  divided  between  the  ordinary  jurisdiction  (civil  and  criminal)  and 
specialised courts (administrative, finance, labour and social courts). Appointment of judges 
and  prosecutors,  except  for  the  Federal  Courts  and  the  Prosecutor  General  at  the  Federal 
Court of Justice, falls  within the competence of the  Länder. While appointment  procedures 
differ  in  details  between  the  Länder,  all  share  common  core  elements,  in  particular  the 
principle  of  merit2  and  the  judicial  review  of  the  process  and  decisions  relating  to 
appointments.  For  the  Federal  Courts,  a  judges’  selection  committee  selects  judges  for 
appointment  by  the  executive  and  Councils  of  judges  of  the  relevant  courts  have  to  be 
consulted  in  this  process3.  There  are  currently  638  local  courts,  115  regional  courts  and  24 
higher regional courts, as well as 51 administrative courts and 15 higher administrative courts 
across the 16 Länder4. There are five Federal Courts: the Federal Court of Justice, the Federal 
Administrative Court, the Federal  Finance Court, the Federal  Labour Court and the Federal 
Social Court. Germany has a Federal Constitutional Court and as well as constitutional courts 
in  each  of  the  Länder.  The  prosecution  services  in  Germany  are  part  of  the  executive,  at 
federal level with the Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice. At the level of the 
Länder,  each  Land  has  its  own  public  prosecution  service.  Germany  participates  in  the 
European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). There are 27 regional Bars in Germany5, which 
are organised under the umbrella of the German Federal Bar.  

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  in  Germany  continues  to  be  very  high 
among  the general  public and  is  now very high among  companies. Overall, 76% of the 
general population and 77% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and 
judges  to  be  ‘fairly  or  very  good’  in  20226.  According  to  data  in  the  2022  EU  Justice 
Scoreboard,  the  level  remains  consistently  high  for  both  the  general  public  and  companies 
since 2016. The perceived judicial independence  among the general public has decreased in 
comparison  with  2021  (80%),  but  it  remains  higher  than  in  2016  (69%).  The  perceived 

1   As explained in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the independence of the German justice systems is ensured by 
multiple safeguards, which include judicial control over appointments, professional appraisals, promotions, 
disciplinary sanctions and dismissals, and by a number of elements of judicial self-administration. 2020 Rule 
of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 3.  

2   The principle of merit is anchored in Article 33 para. 2 of the Basic Law; mainly on the basis of the grades in 

the two legal state exams.  

3   The judges’ selection committee is composed in equal parts of the responsible ministers of the federal states 
and  members  selected  by  the  Federal  Parliament.  See  Law  on  Election  of  Judges  and  German  Law  on 
Judges,  Art.  54-55.  Similar  committees  exist  in  certain  Länder,  though  not  all  of  them.  Moreover,  the 
process  and  decision  of  appointment  or  non-appointment  is  fully  subject  to  judicial  control  before  the 
administrative courts.  

4   There are also 18 financial courts, 108 labour courts, 18 higher labour courts, 68 social courts and 14 higher 

social courts. German Federal Ministry of Justice (2020), Courts at federal level and of the Länder.  

5   There  is  also  a  special bar  for  the  lawyers  with  rights  of  audience  in  civil  matters  at  the  Federal  Court  of 

Justice.  

6   Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

3 

 
                                                 
judicial  independence  among  companies  has  increased  in  comparison  with  2021  (68%)  as 
well as in comparison with 2016 (73%). 

The reinstatement of experience requirements among the selection criteria for presiding 
judges at the Federal Courts has been welcomed by the judiciary. As noted in the 2021 
Rule of Law Report7, the decision by the Minister of Justice in September 2020 to remove the 
requirement  of  usually  five  years  of  experience  at  the  respective  Federal  Court8  from  the 
selection criteria for presiding judges, without involving the Federal Courts and during an on-
going  recruitment  procedure,  had  been  subject  to  criticism  from  the  judiciary9.  In  February 
2022,  the  new  Minister  of  Justice  decided  to  return  to  the  previous  selection  criteria, 
including  as  regards  the  specific  experience  requirement10,  which  has  been  welcomed  by 
stakeholders11.  This  has  allowed  the  Federal  Courts  to  proceed  with  appointments  for 
presiding judges for a number of vacant posts, which had been frozen in the meantime12. As 
regards the vacancies at the Federal Finance Court that were noted in the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report13, a new president was appointed in January 202214, following an unsuccessful appeal 
by another applicant. Furthermore, in the appeal proceedings against the appointment of the 
vice-president  of  the  Finance  Court,  a  second  instance  administrative  court  found  that  the 
selection  procedure  had  violated  the  requirements  of  Article  33  para  2  of  the  Basic  Law 
(principle of merit)15, meaning that the procedure will have to be repeated16. More generally, 
the coalition agreement includes an announcement to reform the appointment and promotion 
system  for  judges  at  the  Federal  Courts  based  on  the  criteria  of  quality,  transparency  and 
diversity17.  However,  no  steps  have  yet  been  taken.  Stakeholders  consider  that  the  current 
system broadly functions well18.  

A  new  proposal  to  reform  the  power  of  Ministers  of  Justice  to  issue  instructions  to 
Prosecutors in individual  cases has been announced.  During  the last legislative period, , 
the  reform  proposed  by  the  Federal  Ministry  of  Justice  to  abolish  the  right  to  issue 
instructions  to  prosecutors  in  individual  cases  only  in  the  field  of  EU  and  international 

7   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, pp. 3-4. 
8   Exceptions from the criteria of having five years of experience were already possible.  
9   German Judges’ Magazine (1/22), Interview with Supreme Court President Bettina Limperg; Contributions 
from the German Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 10 and the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report, p. 6.  

10   To be noted that in principle under these criteria, exceptions from the five years of experience are possible.  
11   Information received from the Association of Judges in the context of the country visit to Germany; Legal 
Tribune Online (2022), Article on reinstatement of experience requirements at the  Federal Courts (‘Wieder 
fünf Jahre Erfahrung für Führung eines Bundesgerichts’). 

12   German Judges’ Magazine (3/22), Progress with recruitments at the Federal Courts.  
13   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, pp. 3-4. 
14   German Federal Finance Court (2022), Dr. Hans-Josef Thesling new President of the Finance Court.  
15   Judgment of the High Administrative Court of Bavaria of 1 February 2022, 6 CE 21.2708, which confirmed 

the decision in first instance. The judgment cannot be appealed further.  

16   The  Court  found  that  the  comparison  of  the  applicants'  performance  on  the  basis  of  the  appraisals  in  the 
service, which the Federal Government had carried out, was legally incorrect. Whether criteria for presiding 
judges apply to court presidents and vice-presidents remains a point of debate that was not addressed in the 
court ruling. Stakeholders consider that in particular vice-presidents have primarily judicial responsibilities 
and should therefore fulfil the experience criteria. The Court states in its judgement of 1 February 2022, 6 
CE 21.2708, para. 29 that it is not objectionable if the Ministry of Justice considers the administrative tasks 
of the vice president to be of greater significance than the judicial tasks. . See also 2021 Rule of Law Report, 
Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, pp. 3-4. 

17   Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, p. 106.  
18   Information received from  the German Judges  Association in the context of the country visit to Germany; 

German Judges’ Magazine (1/22), Interview with Supreme Court President Bettina Limperg. 

4 

 
                                                 
judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  was  not  taken  forward19.  The  new  coalition 
agreement  maintains  the  intention  to  adjust  the  ministerial  right  to  issue  individual 
instructions  in  view  of  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  case  law  of  the  European  Court  of 
Justice20.  At  this  stage  no  further  details  have  been  announced,  but  stakeholders  and  the 
Länder  remain  split  on  the  need  for  such  a  reform.  A  number  of  Länder  as  well  as  other 
stakeholders  consider  that  the  possibility  to  issue  instructions  needs  to  be  maintained  to 
comply with the constitutional principle of democratic legitimacy21, while other stakeholders 
argue for its abolition, in view of avoiding any appearance of political influence22. The UN 
Human Rights committee has also recommended to Germany in November 2021 to consider 
legislative  reforms  to  effectively  ensure  the  independence  of  the  prosecution  service23. 
According to Council of Europe recommendations, where the Government has the power to 
give instructions to prosecute a specific case, such instructions must carry with them adequate 
guarantees that transparency and equity are respected in accordance with national law24. 

Measures  and  reflections  to  introduce  regular  security  checks  for  judges  before  their 
appointment  are  underway  in  certain  Länder.  In  most  Länder,  the  National  Security 
Agencies  only  perform  security  checks  of  the  records  of  a  specific  candidate  for  judicial 
appointment  upon  explicit  request  of  the  appointing  authority25.  In  Bavaria,  since  2016,  all 
candidates  are subject  to a standard request  to  the security  agency to check  its  records, but 
only  with  the  consent  of  the  candidate26  and  the  applicant  has  the  right  to  react  to  any 
potential  concerns  raised  in  the  context  of  this  check.  In  May  2021,  Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern introduced a system of systematic security checks of all candidate judges by the 
National Security Agency27. Candidate judges have to be informed about the procedure28 and 
have  the  right  to  request  a  review  in  front  of  an  administrative  court29.  In  Bremen  and 
Niedersachsen,  reflections  are  currently  on-going  to  introduce  a  system  of  more  systematic 
security  checks30.  The  aim  behind  such  reforms  would  be  to  identify  whether  candidate 

19   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 3.  
20   The coalition agreement further notes that issuing a European Arrest Warrant requires a decision by a judge. 
Coalition  Agreement  2021-2025,  p.  106.  To  be  noted  that  the  relevant  case  law  of  the  European  Court  of 
Justice  on  concerns  the  definition  of  the  term  ‘judicial  authority’  in  the  context  of  the  application  of  the 
European  Arrest Warrant.  Judgments of the  Court of Justice of the European Union of  27 May 2019,  OG 
and  PI,  Joined  Cases  C-508/18  and  C-82/19  PPU  and  of  24  November  2020  –  C-510/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:456.  

21   Joint  letter  by  Hessen,  Bayern,  Brandenburg,  Nordrhein-Westfalen,  Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,  Saarland, 
Niedersachsen  and  Schleswig-Holstein  of  3  February  2021  and  information  received  from  the  EU  Affairs 
Committee  of  the  Justice  Ministers  Conference  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Germany.  See  also 
contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 7.  

22   Contribution from the German Association of Judges for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 7; Position Paper 

by the New Judges’ Association  on the draft law on instructions to prosecutors from 2021. 

23   Contribution  from  UN  Human  Rights  Regional  Office  for  Europe  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report  – 
Germany; OCHCR (2021), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  – Concluding observations 
on the seventh periodic review of Germany, para. 41.  

24   Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 13 (d-e). As 
noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the fact that this right is rarely used in practice, combined with the 
legal safeguards in place, appears to mitigate the risk of misuse of the right of instruction; 2020 Rule of Law 
Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 3.  

25   Figure 56, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
26   Communication on the duty of constitutional loyalty in the public service of the Bavarian State Government.  
27   Figure 56, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. State Judges Law Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, §3a.  
28   State Civil Servant Law Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, §12a.  
29   As part of the general possibility for judicial review of the entire appointment procedure; see also FN 3.  
30   Information received from the EU Committee of the Conference of Justice Ministers  in the context of  the 

country visit to Germany.  

5 

 
                                                 
judges  respect  the  principle  of  constitutional  loyalty31.  According  to  European  standards32, 
when  security/integrity  checks  are  not  carried  out  by  self-governing  bodies  of  the  judiciary 
themselves  but  by  an  external  body,  utmost  consideration  must  be  given  to  respecting  the 
principles of separation of powers and checks and balances33.  

Quality  

The  Pact  for  the  Rule  of  Law  will  be  extended  to  provide  further  resources  for  the 
judiciary,  but  long-term  challenges  regarding  to  recruitment  and  salaries  of  judges 
remain.  Following  a  request  by  the  Länder  reiterated  in  November  202134  and  repeated 
demands by stakeholders35 already noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report36, the new coalition 
agreement of the Federal Government includes a commitment to continue the 2019 ‘Pact for 
the Rule of Law’37. On 2 June 2022, the Länder formally requested the Federal Government 
to start negotiations for the new Pact for the Rule of Law38, which were then started on 9 June 
202239.  The  implementation  of  the  original  pact  has  continued,  with  over  2700  posts  for 
judges  and  prosecutors  having  been  created  by  June  202140,  already  over-fulfilling  the 
commitment of creating 2000 new posts by the end of 2021. A final report from the Länder 
on the implementation of the pact will be presented in 202241. While recognising the progress 
made  so  far,  representatives  of  judicial  associations  consider  that  due  to  new  tasks  for  the 
judiciary,  around  1500  to  2000  additional  posts  for  judges  and  prosecutors  would  be 
necessary42 and that additional investments are also needed for creating posts for court staff43, 
requesting a strong involvement of all judicial stakeholders, including also lawyers44, in the 
preparation of the new pact for the rule of law. In addition, longer-term challenges persist, in 

31   According to §9 of the German Law on Judges, judges have to the guarantee that they will always stand up 
for the free democratic basic order within the meaning of the Basic Law. Discussions about the return of a 
politician who had expressed right-wing extremist views during his mandate to his former position of judge 
have  recently  highlighted  the  question  of  constitutional  loyalty.  See  the  statement  of  the  German  Judges’ 
Association (2022): Make use of all legal options in case of Meier.  

32   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2021)046), para. 16. 
33   While  there  may  be  a  legitimate  interest,  especially  for  certain  specific  judicial  posts,  to  conduct  a 
verification  of  security,  this  should  be  done  in  full  respect  for  judicial  independence.  Venice  Commission 
opinion (CDL(2022)005), para. 14. 

34   Conference  of  the  Justice  Ministers  (2021),  Pact  for  the  Rule  of  Law.  As  noted  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 
Report,  the  Länder  had  already  requested  the  continuation  of  the  pact  in  June  2021;  2021  Rule  of  Law 
Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 5.  

35   Contributions  from  the  German  Association  of  Judges,  the  German  Federal  Bar  and  the  German  Bar 

Association for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

36   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, pp. 4-5.  
37   Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, p. 105.  
38   Conference of the Justice Ministers (2022), Pact for the Rule of Law – Pact for the Strengthening of Justice. 
See  also,  Bavarian  Ministry  of  Justice,  Press  statement  of  2  June  2022  on  the  Conference  of  Justice 
Ministers. 

39   To be noted that the federal structure of the German judiciary allows funding of the courts operated under 

the responsibility of the Länder only within narrow limits set by the Basic Law. 

40   As of June 2021, around 2 500 of these posts had been filled. In addition, over 3800 posts for other judicial 
staff had been created of which around 2 500 had been filled. Input from Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law 
Report, p. 7.  

41   Input from Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 7.  
42   Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 15; Contribution 

from the German Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 12.  
43   Contribution from the German Federal Bar for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 13.  
44   Contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 12.  

6 

 
                                                 
view of an upcoming ‘wave’ of retirements of judges45. In this context, concerns continue to 
be  raised  regarding  the  overall  attractiveness  of  the  profession,  with  stakeholders  pointing 
both  to  the  overall  level  of  salaries  as  well  as  regional  disparities  in  this  respect  as  a 
challenge46. A study of the German Association of Judges47 published in January 2022 shows 
that  such  disparities  can  amount  up  to  a  13%  difference  in  salary  for  entry-level  positions 
between the Länder48. 

Efforts to improve the digitalisation of the justice system continue, and should also be 
covered  in  the  framework  of  the  expanded  Pact  for  the  Rule  of  Law.  The  new  Federal 
Government  coalition  has  announced  that  the  existing  ‘Pact  for  the  Rule  of  Law’49  will  be 
expanded to  encompass  also  a ‘Digital  Pact  for the Judiciary’50. Comprehensive procedural 
rules for the use of digital tools are in place in Germany for civil, criminal and administrative 
proceedings51. Electronic  communication tools for courts  and prosecution  services  are fully 
implemented52. Digital solutions to initiate and follow proceedings in civil and administrative 
cases  are  overall  very  good53.  However,  gaps  still  exist  for  criminal  cases,  for  example  on 
defendants’ ability to communicate confidentially with their lawyer during remote hearings54. 
As noted in the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports, courts and public prosecutors will be 
obliged to keep court and procedural files exclusively as electronic files by 1 January 202655 
and  three  projects  at  Länder  level  are  ongoing  towards  that  transition56.  While  the 
stakeholders  are  broadly  in  favour  of  the  digitalisation  of  the  judiciary  under  the  expanded 
Pact  for  the  Rule  of  Law,  they  pointed  out  that  greater  efforts  are  needed  to  ensure  the 
consistent,  effective  and  practical  use  of  digital  tools  across  the  country,  which  can  vary 
among individual courts and Länder57. Building on the experiences of using the existing civil 

45   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 5.  
46   Contribution from the German Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11.  
47   German Association of Judges (2022), Gap in entry level salaries remains wide.  
48   According to European standards, judges’ remuneration should be commensurate  with their profession and 
responsibilities,  and  be  sufficient  to  shield  them  from  inducements  aimed  at  influencing  their  decisions. 
Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  to  member 
states  on  judges:  independence,  efficiency  and  responsibilities,  para.  54.  See  also  Recommendation 
CM/Rec(2010)12, para. 33. 

49   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany. 
50   Coalition Agreement 2012-2025, p. 105.  
51   Figure 42, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
52   Figures 43-44, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
53   Figures 46-47, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
54   Figures 46-47, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
55   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 4 and 2021 Rule of 

Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 5.  

56  The  Länder  are  engaging  in  three  large-scale  projects  to  implement  the  full  digitalisation  of  court  files 
(namely,  eAS  (4  Länder),  eIP  (6  Länder)  and  e2A  (6  Länder)),  which  has  involved  the  progressive 
introduction of the electronic filing in courts for pilot and regular use. As the sorting and filing of documents 
in an electronic file is more time-consuming than  with a paper file, particularly due  to the need to capture 
metadata,  name  or  categorise  documents,  the  SMART  project  was  launched  in  the  Rhineland-Palatinate, 
which aims to automate these processes with the support of artificial intelligence; a pilot project in a court is 
being prepared. Input from Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 10 and information received.  EU 
Affairs Committee of the Justice Ministers Conference in the context of the country visit to Germany.  

57   The German Federal Bar highlighted among other the need for better technical equipment and infrastructure, 
the  consistent  implementation  and  further  development  of  electronic  legal  transactions.  Contribution  from 
the  German  Federal  Bar  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  14.  The  German  Association  of  Judges 
considers further investment efforts will be needed to ensure a transition to a fully digitized justice system by 
January  2026  (i.e.  target  date  for  the  use  of  electronic  file).  Contribution  by  the  German  Association  of 
Judges to the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 12 and German Association of Judges (2021), After the Pact is 

7 

 
                                                 
 
procedural rules for digital hearings58, in November 2021 the Conference of Justice Ministers 
asked  the  Federal  Government  to  modernise  the  rules  for  hearings  in  the  civil  procedural 
code59. The Federal Ministry of Justice is presently working on a draft proposal60. 

Steps  to  provide  for  specialised  court  chambers  for  commercial  matters  with  the 
possibility  to  conduct  proceedings  in  English  are  continuing.  Following  a  legislative 
proposal  tabled  by  the  Federal  Council  (Bundesrat)  as  noted  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 
Report61,  the  coalition  agreement  has  taken  up  a  commitment  to  provide  for  specialised 
chambers for international commercial and economic disputes that may conduct proceedings 
in  English62.  The  proposal  had  lapsed  with  the  end  of  the  legislative  period,  but  has  been 
reintroduced by the Bundesrat to the Bundestag in March 202263. In the meantime, in Berlin a 
new  chamber  for  international  commercial  and  competition  disputes  has  been  created  in 
202164.  Other  projects  aimed  at  improving  court  specialisation  related  to  large-scale 
international proceedings include ‘Quality Law NRW’, which provides for the centralisation 
of  certain  type  of  disputes  at  specific  upper  regional  courts,  for  example  cases  related  to 
mergers  and  acquisitions  above  a  value  of  EUR  500 000  at  the  upper  regional  court  of 
Düsseldorf65. The aim is to centralise expertise in complex and fast-evolving areas of law and 
thereby to ensure efficient and high-quality adjudication.  

Efficiency 

The justice system overall continued to perform efficiently, even if the ‘mass’ civil court 
cases66 are posing a challenge. While the disposition time has increased for administrative 
cases  in  2020  (from  397  days  in  2019  to  426  days  in  2020),  their  high  clearance  rate  has 
remained relatively stable (at 109% in 2019 and at 110% in 2020) and confirmed the positive 
trend on efficiency in administrative cases67. The number of pending administrative cases has 
slightly decreased in 2020, yet remains relatively high at 0.9 cases per 100 inhabitants68. At 
the same time, in 2021, a significant increase of cases in relation to challenges on restrictions 
related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  was  observed  in  the  administrative  courts  compared  to 
2020, which may take time to process also throughout 202269. The performance indicators on 

before the Pact. The German Bar Association pointed out that as of January 2022 lawyers, public authorities 
or legal persons under public law are obliged to submit briefs to the courts only electronically, whereas the 
same obligation on electronic communication does not apply to the courts. Contribution by the German Bar 
Association to the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 13. 
58   Article 128a of the German Code of Civil Procedure.  
59   Conference of the Justice Ministers (2021), Further development of video hearings in court proceedings.  
60   Information received from the Federal Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Germany. 
61   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 6.  
62   Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, p. 106.  
63   Bundesrat (2021), Draft Law on strengthening courts in economic disputes.  
64   District Court Berlin (2021), International chambers in the  District Court Berlin. Similar chambers already 

exist in Baden-Württemberg, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Saarland and Hamburg.  

65   In addition, cases related to information and media technology and to renewable energy above EUR 100 000 
are centralised at the courts of Cologne and of Essen and Bielefeld, respectively. Decree on jurisdiction for 
disputes from the areas corporate transactions (mergers & acquisitions), information technology and media 
technology as well as renewable energies.  

66   This  normally  relates  to  a  very  high  number  of  individual  civil  claims  that  tend  to  have  the  same  or  very 

similar factual characteristics. 

67   Figures 5, 9 and 13, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
68   Figure 16, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
69   For example, in the North-Rhine Westphalian administrative courts, with a jurisdiction for about a quarter of 
the national population, the challenges against the COVID-19 restrictions at first instance in 2021 amounted 

8 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
civil  and  commercial  litigious  cases  have  remained  stable  (with  the  clearance  slightly 
decreasing  from  98.8%  in  2019  to  98.1%  in  2020)70.  As  highlighted  by  stakeholders71,  the 
phenomenon  of  ‘mass’  civil  court  cases,  such  as  cases  related  to  the  so-called  Dieselgate 
scandal72  present  serious  challenges  for  judges  to  ensure  handling  of  cases  within  adequate 
timeframes73.  This  issue  has  also  been  recognised  as  urgent  by  the  Conference  of  Justice 
Ministers  in  November  2021  and  June  2022,  which  have  asked  the  Federal  Government  to 
examine  the  possibility  of  legislative  amendments  to  enable  the  efficient  handling  of  mass 
civil court proceedings74. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

Germany  has  several  authorities  responsible  for  the  prevention  of  corruption  at  the  federal 
level, including  the  Federal  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  Building  and  Community  and  the 
Supreme  Audit  Institution.  Competences  for  the  policy  coordination  and  corruption 
prevention  in  the  16  Ministries  of  the  Interior  at  the  Länder  level  depend  on  the  anti-
corruption frameworks in place. The Federal Court of Auditors75 and the Courts of Auditors 
at  the  Länder  level  have  a  preventive  role  in  monitoring  the  public  spending,  including 
controls  of  corruption.  As  to  the  repression  of  corruption,  Germany  has  a  decentralised 
approach. The sixteen Länder are in charge of the investigation and prosecution of corruption 
offences  across  Germany.  Some  Länder  have  specialised  police  and  prosecution  offices  on 
corruption  in  place.  The  Federal  Criminal  Police  Office  plays  a  role  in  the  information-
exchange between the international level and the local level as well as among police offices 
at the Länder level.  

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the public sector remains low.  In the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency 
International,  Germany  scores  80/100  and  ranks  5th  in  the  European  Union  and  10th 
globally76.  This  perception  has  been  relatively  stable  over  the  past  five  years77.  The  2022 

to  10 442  cases  (both  main  and  interim  measures  cases)  with  1 903  cases  having  been  decided.  By 
comparison,  in  2020,  1 473  cases  were  received.  The  proportion  of  these  cases  in  all  new  disputes  at  the 
North-Rhine  Westphalian  administrative  courts  thus  increased  from  about  3%  in  2020  to  20%  in  2021. 
Higher Administrative Court of North-Rhine Westphalia (2022), Annual Report, pp. 3 and 12. 

70   Figure 12, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
71   German Judges’ Magazine (12/21), p. 438 and (03/22), p. 102, and information received  from the German 

Association of Judges in the context of the country visit to Germany.  

72   According  to  the  Judges  Association,  the  number  of  cases  related  to  the  so-called  Dieselgate  scandal  at 
Higher  Regional  Courts  in  2021  increased  by  25%  to  about  37 500  cases.  German  Judges’  Magazine, 
(03/22), p. 102.  

73   Contribution  from  the  European  Association  of  Judges  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  pp.  21-22; 

Contribution from the German Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 10. 

74   The  Conference  of  Justice  Ministers  suggested  that  the  legislative  amendments  could  touch  upon  on  civil 
law, civil procedural law, professional and legal services laws as well as on court fees and costs. Conference 
of the Justice Ministers (2021), Urgent need for reform to deal with mass procedures.  

75   There  is  also  a  role  for  the  Federal  Court  of  Auditors  to  assess  the  implementation  of  the  Federal 
Government Corruption Prevention Directive. It can provide recommendations for corruption risks and for 
corruption prevention. 

76   Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. The level of perceived corruption is 
categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public  sector 
corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-50), 
high (scores below 50).  

77   In 2017, the score was 81, while, in 2021, the score is 80. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes more than five points; improves/deteriorates (changes between 4-5 points), and is relatively stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

9 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  53%  of  respondents  consider  corruption 
widespread  in  their  country  (EU  average  68%)  and  8%  of  respondents  feel  personally 
affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%)78. As regards businesses, 44% of 
companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 17% consider that 
that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%)79. Furthermore, 34% of 
respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from  corrupt 
practices  (EU  average  34%)80,  while  35%  of  companies  believe  that  people  and  businesses 
caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 29%)81.  

Germany’s  strategic  anti-corruption  framework  at  the  federal  level  continues  to  be 
implemented  and  is  under  review82.  The  ‘Federal  Government  Directive  Concerning  the 
Prevention of Corruption in the Federal Administration’ sets out key elements of the federal 
administration’s  corruption  prevention  strategy  applying  to  all  categories  of  federal 
employees, authorities and offices, including the supreme federal authorities, the military and 
state-owned  enterprises83.  The  revision  of  the  directive  led  by  the  Ministry  of  Interior  is 
expected  to  be  finalised  by  the  end  of  202284.  Germany  has  been  encouraged  during  the 
UNCAC  review  to  seek,  where  appropriate,  input  from  stakeholders  outside  the  public 
sector85.  Similarly,  the  currently  ongoing  revision  of  the  2004  rules  on  the  prohibition  to 
accept favours and gifts, with an aim to assess whether more up-to-date and harmonised rules 
and  increased  legal  certainty  would  be  required,  takes  longer  than  initially  planned  and  is 
expected  to  be  finalised  in  202386.  The  delayed  comprehensive  2020  compilation  report  on 
integrity in the federal public administration planned for 2021, was finally published in spring 
2022, including, among others, specific data on corruption cases and suspicion of corruption 
in the federal public administration87. 

The  Government  envisages  further  strengthening  the  legal  framework  for  corruption. 
Corruption  is  already  broadly  criminalised  in  Germany88.  Following  the  introduction  of 

78   Special  Eurobarometer  523  on  Corruption  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  citizens’  corruption 
perception and experience is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 
502 (2020). 

79   Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022). The Eurobarometer 
data on business attitudes towards corruption as is updated every second year. The previous data set is the 
Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

80   Special Eurobarometer 523 on Corruption (2022).  
81   Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022).  
82   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 7.  
83   UNCAC Review Report of Germany for the Review Cycle 2016-2021 (2020), pp. 29, 31-32. The strategy is 
limited  to  the  federal  level  and,  thematically,  to  the  prevention  of  corruption.  In  general,  stakeholders 
consider the system in place for the monitoring of the implementation of the directive to be comprehensive 
and  well-functioning,  information  received  from  LobbyControl  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 
Germany. 

84   Information received from the Ministry of Interior in the context of the country visit to Germany. An inter-
ministerial  working  group,  which  includes  contact  persons  for  corruption  prevention  and  experts  from  the 
internal  audit  units  prepares  the  revision,  submitting  it  to  all  federal  ministries  for  approval  and  to  the 
Federal Cabinet for adoption. 

85   United  Nations  Convention  against  Corruption  Country  Review  Report  of  Germany  for  the  Review  Cycle 

2016-2021 (2020), p. 30. 

86   Information received from the Ministry of Interior in the context of the country visit to Germany. See also 

2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 7. 
87   Ministry of Interior (2021), Integrity in the public administration – Annual Report 2020.  
88   Corruption is comprehensively criminalised in Germany, including active and passive bribery (see sections 
331-337  of  the  Criminal  Code).  Private  sector  bribery  is  further  criminalised  in  sections  299-300  of  the 
Criminal  Code,  while bribery of  members of Parliament is specifically criminalised in  section 108e of the 

10 

 
                                                 
 
increased sanction levels that entered into force in October 2021, the new coalition agreement 
includes,  in  addition,  reform  plans  to  make  the  criminal  offence  for  bribery  involving 
members of the Parliament more effective89. There is also a new initiative foreseen in the new 
coalition  agreement  to  revise  current  corporate  sanctions,  after  the  failure  of  the  initiative 
from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  to  introduce  a  Corporate  Sanction  Law90  in  June  202191.  A 
statute for corporate criminal liability92 could further facilitate Germany’s leading role among 
OECD  countries  in  criminal  prosecutions  of  foreign  bribery93.  A  new  law  also  came  into 
force amending the existing transparency register now requiring all legal  entities to register 
information on beneficial ownership in companies94. 

The  financial  damage  caused  by  corruption  has  seen  a  significant  rise  in  202095.  The 
federal  police  publishes  on  an  annual  basis  a  robust  analytical  National  Situation  Report 
illustrating Germany’s efforts to repress corruption. The report could be further improved by 
including  information  broken  down  by  Germany’s  16  Länder96.  The  latest  2021  official 
Federal  Police  Report  details  5 510  police-registered  corruption  cases  in  202097.  This 
represents  a  minor  increase  in  numbers  of  cases  by  1.5%  compared  to  201998.  The  Report 
also indicates a decrease of 14.5% in the number of suspects. However, the number of bribery 

Criminal  Code.  Germany  has  specific  provisions  for  bribery  of  foreign  officials  in  place  (section  335a 
Criminal Code; Article 1 (2) (4) Act on Combating International Bribery).  

89   Section 108(e) of the  Criminal Code. Active  and passive  bribery involving a  member of the Parliament  is 
since  October  2021  a  crime  carrying  a  minimum  sanction  of  one  year  of  imprisonment  and  a  maximum 
sentence of ten years of imprisonment (in minor cases, six month to five years). Due to the upgrading to a 
crime,  attempted  bribery  involving  a  member  of  the  Parliament  is  now  also  punishable.  As  it  stands,  in 
addition to imposing a sentence to imprisonment for taking or offering a bribe in one’s capacity as member 
of Parliament, a court may deprive a person of their ability to acquire rights from public elections and the 
right to be elected or vote in public matters. 

90   Law on the sanctioning of association-related crimes. 
91   After one ministerial draft submitted, one government bill and several debates about the planned provisions, 
the  legislative  plan  had  been  dropped  after  more  than  three  years  due  to  the  lack  of  support  by  the 
conservative  coalition  partner  particularly  regarding  the  planned  handling  of  internal  investigations.  The 
previous 2020 draft bill and the contributions to the related public consultation are publicly available on the 
website of the Federal Ministry of Justice (2020), Business Integrity Strengthening Act. 

92   Companies  can  be  held  liable  for  corruption  offenses  committed  by  their  representatives  under  the  more 
generic  Act on  Regulatory  Offences  with a fine of  up to EUR 10 Million and the possibility to confiscate 
profits,  which  represents  an  administrative  corporate  liability  regime.  According  to  the  OECD  (2021), 
Working Group on Bribery, Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Phase 4 - Two Year Follow-
Up Report Germany, p. 4, the lack of enforcement against legal persons has indeed demonstrated the limits 
of Germany’s administrative liability regime. 

93   OECD  (2021),  Working  Group  on  Bribery,  Implementing  the  OECD  Anti-Bribery  Convention,  Phase  4  - 
Two Year Follow-Up Report Germany, noting, however, that enforcement primarily targets natural persons 
who commit economic offences, while Germany’s corporate liability regime remains critically low. See also 
Correctiv (2022), Export champion Germany – the corruption file, indicating the defence sector as high-risk 
corruption sector. 

94   Previously,  companies  did  not  have  to  register  in  the  transparency  register  if  the  information  on  the 
beneficial owner was derived from other registers. Transparency Register and Financial Information Act. For 
the implementation, there is a transition period until 1 December 2022.  

95   German Federal Criminal Police Office (2021), Federal overview on corruption 2020. 
96   The report is based on information supplied by the Federal Criminal Police Office and its counterparts in the 
federal  states,  the  Federal  Police  and  the  Customs  Criminological  Office  using  a  nationally  standardised 
questionnaire and published every January for the previous year.  

97  German Federal Criminal Police Office (2021), Federal overview on corruption 2020. 
98   As such, the number of police-registered corruption crimes is just slightly above the average of the past five 

years. 

11 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
cases have starkly increased99. Cash payments are the most widely used form of corruption. 
At the same time, the value of undue advantages obtained through bribery also significantly 
increased100.  Overall,  the  detected  financial  damage  caused  by  corruption  has  notably 
increased compared to the previous year (2019) by 72.3% amounting to EUR 81.2 million in 
2020.  Of  those  who  accepted  a  bribe,  71%  have  been  public  officials,  which  represents  an 
increase  by  4%,  compared  to  the  previous  year.  The  services  sector  is  the  most  affected, 
while  the  public  administration  represents  the  preferred  target101.  Thus,  compared  to  the 
previous  year,  overall  the  detected  financial  damage  caused  by  corruption  has  notably 
increased in Germany in 2020102, with a stark rise of bribery targeting the public sector. 

The mandatory lobby register and a lobbying code of conduct entered into force and the 
coalition  agreement  aims  at  further  increasing  lobbying  transparency.  Germany’s 
mandatory  lobby  register103,  administered  by  the  Federal  Parliament  (Bundestag)  and 
applicable to the Federal Parliament, the Federal Government and ministries, including heads 
of directorates and above, came into force in January 2022104. The new Government plans to 
widen  its  scope  to  register  a  larger  group  of  interest  representatives105  and  to  also  record 
lower  level  meetings  at  technical  levels  in  the  ministries  where  legislative  drafts  originate 
from106. The register is accompanied by a lobbying code of conduct107. An initial suggestion 
from  stakeholders  to  establish  an  independent  oversight  body  was  not  implemented108  with 
the  result  that  the  administration  of  the  Federal  Parliament  will  rely  on  third  parties’ 

99   German Federal Criminal Police Office (2021), Federal overview on corruption 2020. This includes active 

bribery (section 334 Criminal Code) and passive bribery (section 332 Criminal Code). 

100  This is partly due to the fact that those who bribe often aim at obtaining advantages, for example large-scale 
contracts, with a value that is several times higher than the cash bribe itself used to achieve this goal.  See 
German Federal Criminal Police Office (2021), Federal overview on corruption 2020.  
101  German Federal Criminal Police Office (2021), Federal overview on corruption 2020.  
102  This is below the five-year average of EUR 133 million. 
103  Lobbyregister Law (16 April 2021). For more details, see also 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter 

on the rule of Law situation in Germany, p. 9. 

104  The need to enhance lobbying transparency  has been a long-standing concern. See,  for example, GRECO, 
Fifth Round Evaluation – Evaluation Report Germany, para. 63, and UNODC, Review of implementation of 
the  United  Nations  Convention  against  Corruption.  Executive  summary  -  Germany.  Only  five  of  the  16 
Länder have a lobby register in place. Information received from Transparency International in the context 
of 
the  Länder  2022, 
https://lobbyranking.de/. 

to  Germany.  For  more  details,  see  Lobbyranking  of 

the  country  visit 

105  Amendments  are  planned  in  a  differentiated  manner  that  protect  fundamental  rights.  According  to 
information received from LobbyControl in the context of the country visit to Germany, an amendment that 
would  address  concerns  regarding  the  large  scope  of  exemptions  of  interest  representatives  would  have  to 
include  churches  and  religious  communities,  trade  unions  and  employer  associations  to  allow  for  their 
mandatory  registration  in  the  lobby  register  representing  the  most  important  lobby  actors  in  Germany  and 
that are so far not obliged to register. 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Germany, p. 9. 

106  Coalition  Agreement  2021-2025,  p.  10.  This  would  apply  to  heads  of  divisions  and  officers,  according  to 

information received by the Government in the context of the Member State consultation. 

107  German  Federal  Parliament  (2022),  Handbook  for  interest  representatives  to  register  in  the  lobby  register. 
Breaches  of  the  code  will  be  registered  for  a  period  of  24  months  with  the  exclusion  of  the  respective 
lobbyists from the register. The failure to register as a lobbyist will lead to sanctions, including a fine of a 
maximum of EUR 50 000. 

108  Lobbycontrol  (2021),  ‘The  lobby  register  is  coming  –  Our  evaluation’,  similarly,  contribution  from 
Transparency  International  Germany  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  1.  Instead,  the  administrative 
authority  shall  be  the  Secretary-General  of  the  Parliament,  according  to  information  received  by  the 
Government. 

12 

 
                                                 
compliance  monitoring109.  The  new  Government  plans  the  introduction  of  a  ‘legislative 
footprint’110  or  a  digital  legislative  portal  to  publish  who  sought  to  influence  legislative 
drafts.111  The  collection  and  disclosure  of  comprehensive  information  on  who  influences 
whom  in  the  decision-making  process  would  help  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  for  all 
interest representatives contributing to balanced legislative outcomes112. It would also help to 
ensure that risks of corruption, conflicts of interest and regulatory capture is reduced, while 
the  public  interest  is  at  the  legislation’s  core.  The  timeline  for  the  introduction  of  the  new 
transparency tool is scheduled for the end of 2022113.  

Different post-employment rules remain a concern114. In case of concerns of interference 
with the public interest, the Federal Government can prohibit, wholly or in part, the taking up 
of  new  employment  of  high-ranking  public  officials115.  For  federal  ministers  and  federal 
parliamentary state secretaries, the cooling-off periods are much shorter with a 12-18 months 
period, compared to the period applicable to state secretaries and directors general of three to 
five  years,  and  thus  could  warrant  a  longer  mandatory  cooling-off  period116.  Despite 
international recommendations117, the Federal Government does not currently plan to address 
the persistent concerns as to the different application of Germany’s ‘revolving doors’ rules, 
including  varying  cooling-off  periods  and  the  large  discretion  in  the  decision  of  superiors 
regarding future employment of state secretaries and directors general. 

The administration of the Federal Parliament is working on guidelines to interpret rules 
on remunerated side jobs of members of Parliament. The amended Act on members of the 

109  Concerns exist by stakeholders regarding the ceiling of fines at EUR 50 000, which is considered to be too 
low  particularly  for  larger  and  global  enterprises,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  public  information  on  whether 
breaches were fined, as reputational risk may have a greater effect than monetary fines. Contribution from 
Transparency  International  Germany  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  1;  information  received  from 
LobbyControl in the context of the country visit to Germany. Notably, the Lobbying Register Act provides 
some public information on significant breaches by special interest representatives of the code of  conduct, 
thus taking into account that reputational risks can have greater effects than monetary fines. According to the 
Lobbying Register Act, the measures provided for must also be proportionate and no more restrictive than is 
required. 

110  A legislative footprint is a comprehensive public record of lobbyists’ influence on a piece of legislation.  
111  Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, p. 10.  
112  Especially  the  influence  of  large-scale  enterprises  and  business  associations,  including  from  Germany’s 
automobile  industry,  that  use  significant  resources  to  influence  Germany’s  decision-making  process  have 
been  in  focus,  while  several  scandals,  such  as  Wirecard  and  the  mask  affair,  recently  broke.  See,  for 
instance, LobbyControl (2021), Lobbying undermines democracy – Ten theses.  

113  Information received from Administration of the Parliament in the context of the country visit to Germany. 
114  2021 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 9.  
115  The future employment is assumed to interfere with the public interest, if it is pursued in an area in which 
the  member of the Government or parliamentary state secretary was active during his/her term in office or 
may otherwise undermine public trust in the integrity of the  Federal  Government.  For more details on the 
procedure,  see  GRECO  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report,  paras.  86  et  seq.,  indicating  several 
cases where future employment was restricted, see footnote 89.  

116  Stakeholders,  including  LobbyControl  and  Transparency  International,  call  for  a  three-year  cooling-off 
period to better prevent and reduce risks of undue influence, see for instance LobbyControl, Lobbypedia  – 
Cooling-off Period. 

117  GRECO  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report,  paras.  89  and  91.  Political  servants  and  Directors-
General  are  subject  to  cooling-off  regulations  stipulated  in  Civil  Servants  Act,  section  105;  and  the  2021 
Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Germany,  p.  9.  Restrictions  on 
‘revolving doors’ and accompanying disclosure requirements for current and former members of the Federal 
Government  and  parliamentary  state-secretaries  are  laid  down  in  the  Act  Governing  the  Legal  Status  of 
members of the Federal Government (section 6(a) and 6 (b), which apply mutatis mutandis to parliamentary 
state secretaries) and the Act on the Legal Relationships of Parliamentary State Secretaries. 

13 

 
                                                 
Federal  Parliament118  adopted  in  June  2021  addresses  integrity  challenges  with  regard  to 
members of Parliament119. The reform includes a prohibition  for members  of Parliament of 
remunerated lobby activities as side jobs and of remunerated lectures that are in connection to 
their parliamentary work. Supervision and enforcement may present obstacles in practice due 
to  the  lack  of  a  fully  independent  oversight  body  or  ethics  committee  with  a  mandate  to 
investigate breaches120. The amendment does not entail the disclosure of the actual time spent 
on  the  side  job121.  Similarly,  ad  hoc  disclosures  are  not  required  when  a  conflict  between 
specific  private  interests  of  a  member  of  Parliament  emerges  in  relation  to  a  matter  under 
discussion  in  Parliament122.  There  were  several  cases  of  delays  in  the  reporting  of 
parliamentarians’ side activities in 2021123.  

Germany finalised the 2021 internal review of its rules on asset declarations, with some 
concerns  remaining.  The  review  did  not  result  in  addressing  the  lack  of  regulation  for 
members of the Federal Government to disclose assets and properties124. For members of the 
Federal  Parliament,  the  categories  of  information  to  be  disclosed  in  their  financial 
declarations was also not extended to liabilities and significant assets, such as shareholdings 
in  private enterprises below the current  threshold125. Similarly, Germany does  not  intend to 
widen the scope of declarations to also include information on spouses and dependent family 
members126.  The  assets  and  financial  interests  of  members  of  Parliament  are  subject  to 
notification, if the respective member is in charge of an issue  in a parliamentary committee 
and, at the same time, remunerated through a secondary activity127.  

118  Law amending the Act on Members of the Bundestag - Improvement of the transparency rules for members 

of the German Bundestag.  

119  UNODC,  Review  of  implementation  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  against  Corruption,  Executive 
summary - Germany, Implementation Review Group (January 2020); and GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round 
– Interim Compliance Report. 

120  Information received from LobbyControl and Transparency International in the context of the country visit 
to  Germany.  The  Administration  of  the  Parliament  has  a  limited  mandate  to  investigate  and  is  staffed  by 
political parties. See also GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, para. 36, p. 8. 

121  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 10. 
122  GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, paras. 14-17, p. 4.  
123  Transparency International Germany (2021), ‘More than 20.000 euros: Özdemir has also forgotten to report 
special  payments’;  Transparency  International  Germany  (2021),  ‘Lauterbach  reports  fees  belatedly’; 
Transparency International Germany (2021), ‘Ancillary income: Hundreds of thousands of euros from MEPs 
remained undiscovered for years’; Abgeordnetenwatch (2021), ‘Many representatives breached transparency 
rules’.  

124  GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, para. 95. See also 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country 
Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 10, and 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on 
the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Germany,  p.  7.  Information  received  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  Ministry  of 
Interior, the Administration of the Parliament and Transparency International in the context of the country 
visit.  

125  Members of the Parliament are only obliged to disclose shareholdings in private corporations or partnerships 
if  they  possess  more  than  25  per  cent  of  the  voting  rights.  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Interim 
Compliance Report, para. 37, p. 8. UNCAC Country Review Report of Germany, Review Cycle 2016-2021, 
p. 5.  See  also 2021 Rule of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter on the rule of law  situation in Germany, p. 10, 
where  it  was  reported  that  the  amendment  to  the  Act  on  Members  of  the  Federal  Parliament  included  a 
provision to disclose their financial holdings in unincorporated companies and companies with share capital 
above 5% as well as the revenues of such holdings. 

126  Information  received  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Germany.  See, 
however, GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, recommendation iii, paras 18-19. 

127  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 10. 

14 

 
                                                 
Germany  plans  to  revise  its  political  party  financing  rules  to  introduce  more 
transparency in decision-making. Party financing is regulated in the Law for Members of 
the  Parliament  and  the  Law  for  Political  Parties128.  The  new  coalition  agreement  includes 
plans to regulate sponsoring and hidden campaign finance by third parties129. In this context, 
donations  for  parties  above  EUR  35 000  (instead  of  EUR  50 000,  as  is  currently  the  case) 
would have to be notified to the President of the Parliament and made public in the future. In 
addition,  the  threshold  for  donations  to  be  publicly  disclosed  by  parties  in  their  annual 
accountability report130 would be lowered from EUR 10 000 to EUR 7 500. Furthermore, it is 
planned to increase the human and financial resources of the Parliament’s administration to 
strengthen its oversight and control functions in this regard131. It is however not clear whether 
it would have access to the tax information of donors for the monitoring of the regularity of 
party  finance,  in  order  to  be  able  to  cross-check  data  during  the  verification  process  of 
statements of accounts of political parties132. Concerns remain regarding the significant time 
lapse between the party income and its reporting133.  

New rules on whistleblower protection are still in preparation. The legislative initiative of 
the  Federal  Ministry  of  Justice  to  introduce  a  comprehensive  whistleblowing  legislation 
failed to receive the full support of the government coalition in 2021134. A new draft law was 
published  in  April  2022135.  Until  adoption,  the  general  protections  against  retaliation  for 
whistleblowers  remain  fragmented  across  several  pieces  of  legislation.136.  In  practice,  also 
several  contact  points  for  whistleblower  disclosures  are  in  place  at  the  federal  and  state 
level137  who  facilitate  the  disclosure  and  investigation  of  corruption  offences.  The 
fragmentation  across  institutions  and  administrative  levels  has  been  criticised,  as  potential 

128  International reviewers have repeatedly pointed out the need for lower thresholds and strengthened record-
keeping,  while  sponsoring  remains  largely  unregulated  despite  its  potential  to  buy  access  to  important 
government officials. 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 
11.  See  also  UNCAC,  Review  of  implementation  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  Against  Corruption, 
Review Cycle 1 (Chapter III and IV), Executive Summary: Germany, Implementation Review Group (July 
2020),  and  Review  Cycle  2  (Chapter  II  and  V),  Executive  Summary:  Germany,  Implementation  Review 
Group (January 2019).  

129  Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, p. 10. 
130  Political  parties  are  obliged  to  submit  annual  financial  reports  to  the  President  of  the  Federal  Parliament 
including  on  political  party  assets,  liabilities,  income  and  expenditure  in  both  campaign  and  off-campaign 
periods,  according  to  the  German  Political  Parties  Act.  2021  Rule  of  Law  report,  Country  Chapter  on  the 
rule of law situation in Germany, pp. 10-11. 

131  Coalition Agreement 2021-2025 p. 10.  
132  Concerns  in  this  regard  are  flagged  in  UNCAC  Country  Review  Report  of  Germany,  Review  cycle  2016-

2021, p. 67. 

133  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Germany,  p.  10.  Information 
received  from  LobbyControl  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Germany,  emphasising  that  there  is  no 
intention  to  shorten  the  lapse  of  time.  Notably,  the  accountability  reports  of  2021  are  expected  to  be 
published in 2023.  

134  Draft  law  on  whistleblower  protection.  The  draft  law  was  intended  to  transpose  EU  Directive  (EU) 
2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (2019/1937) but failed at the end 
of the legislature due to the lack of agreement between the coalition partners of the previous Government. 

135  Press statement of the Ministry of Justice (2022), Better protection for whistleblowers  
136  Protections exist in Germany’s Basic Law, the Criminal Code, the Civil Code, labour law and case law, see 

UNCAC Country Review Report of Germany, Review Cycle 2016-2021, p. 5. 

137  This  includes  the  Anti-Corruption  Appointees,  the  Specialised  Ombudspersons,  such  as  the  Armed  Forces 
Ombudsman at the federal level, and the Citizen Ombudsmen and Confidence Lawyers at the state level. Cf. 
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 10. 

15 

 
                                                 
whistleblowers  might  have  difficulties  in  identifying  the  appropriate  disclosure  channels138. 
The  Federal  Police  indicates  a  trend  in  previous  years  of  approximately  three  quarters  of 
corruption  proceedings  being  initiated  upon  disclosures  from  such  sources,  including 
whistleblowers139.  

Pandemic-related  corruption  risks  continue  to  exist,  with  several  cases  under 
investigation, while additional preventive measures were taken. Several procurements of 
protective  face  masks  that  had  been  brokered  by  active  and  former  members  of  Parliament 
and their relatives, who had obtained commission payments for the facilitation of contracts, 
were  discovered  and  investigations  were  launched  and  continued  in  2021140.  One  case  of 
alleged passive bribery of members of the Parliament who have brokered facemask deals is 
pending  at  the  Federal  Supreme  Court141.  Since  December  2021,  Germany’s  electronic 
competition register in support of public procurement processes is operational, enhancing the 
prevention  of  corruption  during  and  in  the  aftermath  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic142.  Since 
then, there is an obligation to report relevant crimes and misdemeanours to the register hosted 
by the Federal Cartel Office. The register hosts and flags information for public contracting 
authorities  that  is  relevant  for  the  exclusion  of  bidders  from  the  procurement,  including  on 
final  convictions,  penalty  orders  and  fines  for  corruption,  bribery,  money  laundering,  tax 
evasion,  and  other  serious  crimes143.  Public  contracting  authorities  will  be  under  the 
obligation to consult the competition register in this regard as of 1 June 2022144.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM  

In  Germany,  the  Basic  Law  and  secondary  legislation  form  a  well-established  legal 
framework,  guaranteeing  media  freedom  and  pluralism  as  well  as  the  right  of  access  to 
information145.  The  main  legislative  competence  in  the  area  lies  with  the  Länder,  which 
conclude state treaties to establish a common media policy framework, including notably the 
State  Media  Treaty146.  This  is  completed  by  national  legislation  and  safeguarded  by 
constitutional  guarantees  and  the  relevant  jurisprudence  of  the  Constitutional  Court.  The 
federal  structure  results  in  a  variety  of  legal  frameworks,  supervisory  structures  and  public 
service  broadcasters  providing  an  additional  safeguard  for  media  pluralism  and  media 
freedom147.  

138  Transparency International Germany (2018), Comments and Recommendations to UNCAC Second Review 

Cycle, p. 3. 

139  Information received  from the Federal Criminal Bureau of the police in the context of the country  visit to 

Germany. 

140  See,  for  instance,  Bayrischer  Rundfunk  (2021),  'Mask  deals  –  Tax  investigations  against  Andrea  Tandler'; 

Tagesschau (2021), ‘Mask affair – kisses and commissions’. 

141  Die Zeit (2021), ‘BGH must deal with mask affair’.  
142  Input  from  Germany  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  20.  See  also  section  123(1)  and  (4)  of  the  Act 
against  Restraints  of  Competition.  The  Act  to  Introduce  the  Competition  Register  for  Public  Procurement 
entered into  force on 29 July 2017. The register is set  up  at the  Federal Cartel Offices. UNCAC,  Country 
Review Report of Germany, Review Cycle 2016-2021, p. 32.  

143  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 11. 
144  Input from Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 20. 
145  2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports, Country Chapters on the rule of law situation in Germany. 
146  The state treaties on media do not regulate the press (with the exception of the digital press). There are press 

laws at the level of the Länder.  

147  Germany ranks 16th in the 2022 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 13th in 

the previous year. 

16 

 
                                                 
The  independence  of  the  14  State  Media  Authorities148  functioning  as  regulatory 
authorities  for  commercial  broadcasters  remains  ensured149.  There  have  been  no  major 
changes in the legal framework concerning the State Media Authorities since the 2021 report. 
Their financial independence remains guaranteed, with the budget ensured by a share of the 
broadcasting  fee  for  households150.  The  media  authorities  have  now  adopted  all  of  their 
statutes  required  under  the  revised  State  Media  Treaty  and  are  fully  applying  the  revised 
framework, which entered into force in November 2020151.  

The self-regulation of the press remains effective, but the extension of the framework to 
new online media outlets brings challenges152. The number of complaints received by the 
self-regulatory Press Council, composed of journalists’ and publishers’ associations, in 2021 
has  decreased  notably,  but  remains  at  a  high  level  (2 556  complaints  received  in  2021, 
compared to 4 085 in 2020 and 2 175 in 2019)153. Overall, the Press Council issued 60 public 
reprimands  in  2021  of  which  80%  have  been  published.  About  a  third  of  these  reprimands 
related  to  violations  of  the  protection  of  privacy  as  defined  in  the  Press  Code154.  The  last 
revision of the State Media Treaty has introduced the possibility for certain online media with 
journalistic  content  to  comply  with  their  obligation  to  adhere  to  recognised  journalistic 
principles  by  joining  the  Press  Council  and  committing  themselves  to  its  Press  Code155. 
Journalist representatives indicate that the Council still needs to gather further experience and 
establish  practices  for  how  to  best  deal  with  these  new  type  of  media  outlets156.  The  2022 
Media Pluralism Monitor does not see a risk of commercial or political influence on editorial 
decisions157. 

There are no issues signalled regarding the transparency of media ownership which is 
well developed. The legal framework requires commercial broadcasters to report ownership 
information and plans affecting the shareholders’ structure. It also sets out the requirements 
for broadcasting licences. Additional provisions ensure transparency of ownership for online 
news media and the press158. Access to the information covering television, radio, press and 
online media remains ensured via a public database of the Commission on Concentration in 
the  Media  (KEK)  of  the  state  media  authorities159.  The  2022  Media  Pluralism  Monitor 
concludes that there is a low risk regarding the transparency of media ownership160.  

148  The 14 State Media Authorities are  established at the level of the Länder, with Berlin and Brandenburg as 

well as Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein having agreed on common State Media Authorities. 

149  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, pp. 10-11. 
150  State Media Treaty, s. 112.  
151  Information received from the Media Authorities in the context of the country visit to Germany. 
152  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 12.  
153  Press Council (2022), Annual Report 2021. 
154  Press  Council  (2022),  Annual  Report  2021.  A  public  reprimand,  obliging  the  concerned  media  outlet  to 
publish a correction, is the most far reaching sanction of the German Press Council (to protect those affected, 
the  Council  may also decide to pronounce a  non-public reprimand, this  was the case for one reprimand in 
2021). 

155  State Media Treaty, s. 19.  
156  Information  received  from  the  German  Federation  of  Journalists  and  the  German  Journalists  Union  in  the 

context of the country visit to Germany. 
157  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, pp. 13-14. 
158  See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 12. 
159  KEK (2022), Media concentration. 
160  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 12. 

17 

 
                                                 
The Länder have initiated the process to update the rules on media concentration. While 
the  state  media  laws  contain  provisions  on  media  concentration  across  the  press  and 
broadcasting sector, the State Media Treaty regulates ownership concentration in television, 
under the regulatory supervision of the KEK161. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor indicates 
a  medium  risk  on  its  news  media  concentration  indicator.  It  states  that  the  current  media 
concentration  control  system,  which  was  created  for  a  traditional  media  environment  and 
focuses  on  nationwide  linear  broadcasting,  does  not  prevent  a  high  degree  of  horizontal 
ownership  concentration  and  would  need  to  be  updated  to  take  into  account  today’s  digital 
environment162.  The  need  to  establish  a  future-proof  media  concentration  framework  was 
already concluded in a protocol declaration of all Länder in the context of the conclusion of 
the State Media Treaty in 2020163. The relevant working group of the Länder has now started 
to discuss a future revision of the current rules on concentration164.  

The  legal  framework  safeguards  the  independence  of  the  public  service  broadcasters 
and guarantees a pluralistic offer. The system of public service broadcasters at regional and 
national level, gathered in ARD and ZDF165, ensures a pluralistic public service broadcasting 
structure  and  programming.  The  legal  framework  for  both  regional  and  national  public 
service  broadcaster  ensures  independent  supervisory  structures,  in  particular  in  the  form  of 
broadcasting  councils  responsible  for  the  supervision  as  regards  the  programming  of  the 
broadcasters, and administrative councils, responsible for the supervision of the management 
and  financial  affairs  of  the  broadcasters166.  The  supervisory  bodies  are  intended  to  reflect 
society with its members being nominated by relevant social groups, such as representatives 
from  employer  and  trade  associations,  employee  organisations,  churches,  cultural  or 
educational institutions as well as representatives of the Länder and their parliaments167. The 
members  of  the  supervisory  councils  are  mandated  to  act  independently.  Following  the 
jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, the number of political representatives in 
such supervisory bodies is limited to one third of the members168. The financing in the form 
of a broadcasting fee secures the  financial independence of the public service broadcasters. 
Overall, 
the  public  service 
broadcasters169, ensuring a pluralistic programming. The Länder launched in November 2021 
a public consultation on the future mandate and structure of the public service broadcasters 
with a view on a reform reflecting the digital transformation in the media sector170. Based on 

there  are  strong  safeguards  for 

independence  of 

the 

161  State Media Treaty, s. 60.  
162  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 13. The 2022 MPM concludes that in the area of market plurality there are 
three  areas  showing  a  medium  risk:  news  media  concentration,  online  platforms  concentration  and 
competition enforcement as well as media viability.  

163  State Treaty for the Modernisation of the Media Regulation in Germany. 
164  Information received from the Media Authorities in the context of the country visit to Germany. 
165  Germany’s  public  service  broadcasting  consists  of  the  ZDF,  Deutschlandradio  and  the  ARD,  which  is  the 

joint organisation of the country’s nine regional public service broadcasters.  

166  Contributions from ARD, ZDF and Reporters without Borders for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 
167  Input from Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 28. 
168  German Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of the First Senate of 25 March 2014, 1 BvF 1/11, paras. 1-

135.  

169  The  2022  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  concludes  there  is  a  low  risk  regarding  the  independence  of  public 

service media and its financing in Germany.  

170 Rundfunkkommission der Länder (2021), Draft discussion paper on the order and structural optimisation of 

the public service broadcaster. 

18 

 
                                                 
the  results  of  this  consultation,  the  Länder  agreed  in  June  2022  to  a  legislative  proposal 
amending the State Media Treaty, to be adopted in the following months171.  

There is a solid framework for the journalists’ access to information, but stakeholders 
see further room for improvement. At national level, the Constitution and the Freedom of 
Information  Act  provide  for  the  access  to  information172.  However,  as  already  noted  in  the 
2021 Rule of Law Report173, journalist representatives see certain gaps in the framework, in 
particular  as  regards  requests  for  access  to  information  from  federal  authorities174.  GRECO 
has  also  addressed  a  recommendation  to  Germany  regarding  the  Freedom  of  Information 
Act175.  A  recent  judgment  of  the  Federal  Administrative  Court  confirmed  that  journalists 
have a right of access to information vis-à-vis federal authorities176. In most Länder, there are 
press laws in place guaranteeing the access to information by journalists. However, there are 
noteworthy divergences in the legislation of the Länder177. In its coalition treaty, the Federal 
Government has announced that it will create a legal basis for a right to  information of the 
press as regards federal authorities178. 

While  authorities  at  both  federal  and  Länder  level  are  making  efforts  to  increase  the 
safety of journalists, particularly when covering protests, incidents relating to physical 
aggression  and  online  threats  remain  a  serious  concern179.  As  in  2020,  also  in  2021 
protests  related  to  COVID-19  measures/vaccines  were  a  particular  hotspot  for  aggressions 
against journalists180. Preliminary police statistics for 2021 indicate a total of 276 registered 
criminal offences in the broad target category ‘media’181. These 276 cases included 49 cases 
of threats and 30  cases of violent offences, of which 27 qualified as personal injuries182. In 
addition,  verbal  attacks  and  online  hate  speech  and  threats  targeting  journalists  have  been 
reported to be common183. Since the last report, the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote 
the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  has  registered  five  alerts  relating  to 
events in Germany184. For the year 2021, the Mapping Media Freedom project recorded 119 

171  State  Government  of  Rheinland-Pfalz  (2022),  Amendments  to  the  State  Media  Treaty  adopted  -  brand  of 

public service broadcasting strengthened. 

172  Basic Law, Art. 5(1). 
173  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 13.  
174  Reporters  without  Borders,  Germany;  Contribution  from  Reporters  without  Borders  for  the  2022  Rule  of 
Law  Report,  p.  18;  Information  received  from  the  German  Federation  of  Journalists  and  the  German 
Journalists Union in the context of the country visit to Germany. 

175GRECO  has  recommended  that  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act  should  be  independently  evaluated  and 
possible improvements should be considered on this basis, notably as regards exceptions allowing to decline 
requests under the Act. See GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, para 57.  

176  German  Journalists’  Association,  Right  to  information  under  press  law  from  federal  authorities;  Federal 
Administrative Court, Summary of Case law on access to information of the Federal Intelligence Service. 

177  Open Knowledge Foundation (2021), Transparency Ranking.  
178  Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, p. 124.    
179  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Germany  from  the  German  Federation  of 
Journalists and the German Journalists Union; Input from Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 31-
32; Reporters without Borders, Germany. 

180  Mapping Media Freedom – Monitoring Report 2021, p. 21.  
181  Reply of the German Federal Government to Parliamentary Question on  Attacks on media professionals in 
the  context  of  pandemic-related  protests  (Bundestag  Drucksache  20/949).  39  cases  registered  in  these 
statistics are linked to Covid-19 in the context of protests.  

182  Ibid.  
183  Contribution from Reporters without Borders for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 17. 
184  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Germany. 

19 

 
                                                 
alerts185.  The  registered  incidents  relate  to  physical  aggressions,  verbal  insults  as  well  as 
online  threats  against  journalists.  Overall,  these  concerns  have  a  notable  impact  on  the 
professional  environment  for  journalists  and  in  particular  their  reporting  of  protests.  Media 
outlets often provide private security guards to protect journalists at protests186. The Mapping 
Media  Freedom  project  and  Reporters  without  Borders  also  refer  to  alleged  cases  of 
aggressions  or  threats  by  police  officers  against  journalists187.  However,  it  is  not  clear  to 
which  extent  or  whether  these  allegations  have  been  investigated  or  confirmed  by  official 
authorities. The Conference of the Ministers of Interior of the Länder, the Press Council and 
further media stakeholders currently discuss an  update of the existing principles of conduct 
for the media and the police188. Police authorities in some regions have increased efforts to 
protect  journalists  during  protests,  for  example  by  establishing  safe  spaces  for  media 
workers189. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor concludes that the increasing violence against 
journalists can be considered concerning190.  

Civil society and journalist associations point to some further developments of concern 
regarding  the  professional  environment  for  journalists.  While  the  legal  framework 
remains  generally  effective  at  preventing  strategic  lawsuits  against  public  participation 
(SLAPP) targeting journalists191, also in Germany there are some cases of abusive litigation 
against  journalists192,  as  highlighted  by  a  call  of  media  organisations  and  civil  society 
organisations  (CSOs)  on  the  issue  in  2021193.  CSOs  and  journalist  associations  continue  to 
see  potential  risks  of  journalists  being  subject  to  electronic  surveillance  measures  by 
intelligence  services,  in  particular  when  interacting  with  potential  informants,  and  have 
announced  a  joint  appeal  against  the  recent  legal  reform  adopted  in  June  2021,  allowing 
Germany’s intelligence services to use software tools to monitor communications194.  

185 Mapping Media Freedom – Monitoring Report 2021, p. 11. The annual Mapping Media Freedom Monitoring 
Report for 2021 states that ‘While the high number of alerts can partly be explained by the strength of the 
MFRR  network  in  Germany,  it  clearly  confirms  a  trend  in  the  deterioration  of  press  and  media  freedom, 
especially when it comes to the coverage of demonstrations […]’. 

186  Mapping Media Freedom Monitoring Report 2021, p. 21. 
187  Mapping  Media  Freedom,  country  profile  Germany;  Reporters  without  Borders  (2022),  Close-up  view 

Germany.  

188  Input from Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 31; Press Council (2022), Annual Report 2021, p. 

20. 

189  Information  received  from  the  German  Federation  of  Journalists  and  the  German  Journalists  Union  in  the 

context of the country visit to Germany; Input from Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 31. 

190  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 10. 
191  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p.  10; Information received in the context of the country visit to Germany 
from the German Federation of Journalists and the German Journalists Union. In many cases, pre-litigation 
mechanisms  lead  to  potential  cases  of  strategic  lawsuits  against  public  participation  (SLAPPs)  being 
dismissed  before  reaching  court.  According  to  German  authorities,  in  May  2022  courts  reported  that  they 
have not received any SLAPP cases. 

192  Reporters  without  Borders,  Germany;  Input  from  Reporters  without  Borders  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 

Report, p. 19. 

193  German Journalists’ Association (2021), Press release – SLAPPS: Against the abuse of claims 
194  Reporters without Borders (2021), RSF and Journalists sue against ‘state trojans’; Contribution from Human 
Rights  Watch  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  17.  Human  Rights  Watch  (2021),  Germany’s  New 
Surveillance Laws Raise Privacy Concerns.  

20 

 
                                                 
IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Germany  is  a  federal  republic,  with  powers  distributed  between  the  federal  and  the  sixteen 
state  Governments.  The  separation  of  powers  is  enshrined  in  the  Basic  Law195  and  the 
constitutions  of  the  Länder.  At  the  federal  level,  federal  legislative  power  is  vested  in  the 
Federal  Parliament  (Bundestag)  and  the  representative  body  of  the  Länder  (Bundesrat)196. 
The  Government,  the  Bundesrat  or  members  of  the  Bundestag  can  submit  legislative 
proposals197.  Constitutional  review  is  ensured  by  the  Federal  Constitutional  Court  and  the 
constitutional  courts  of  the  Länder.  The  German  Human  Rights  Institute  and  the  Federal 
Anti-Discrimination Agency contribute to upholding fundamental rights.  

The  Government  plans  to  improve  the  transparency  and  inclusiveness  of  law-making, 
which  could  address  challenges  identified  by  stakeholders  in  the  past.  However,  the 
Government coalition agreement contains an overall commitment to improve quality of law 
making, including early consultation of stakeholders and the creation of a digital portal on the 
law-making process,  where the state of  play of  a proposal  will be presented and comments 
can  be  submitted198.  While  concrete  details  are  yet  to  be  announced,  this  could  respond  to 
criticism  raised  by  some  stakeholders  over  short  or  very  variable  consultation  periods, 
especially  but  not  only  related  to  measures  taken  in  the  COVID-19  pandemic199  or  overall 
insufficiently  transparent  consultation  procedures  on  draft  legislation200.  Currently,  the 
Federal  Government’s  central  platform  on  consultation  procedures  only  brings  together 
information on the existing sites of Ministries and agencies201. 

Germany’s  restrictions  related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  have  progressively  eased 
and  been  subject  to  constitutional  review.  As  noted  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  report,  the 
Infection  Protection  Law  (IfSG)  contained  powers  for  the  Federal  Government  and  the 
Länder  to  take  measures  under  the  IfSG202,  which  could  only  be  exercised  as  long  as  the 
Bundestag has declared a “state of epidemic”203. On 18 November 2021, Parliament passed 
amendments to the IfSG, which allowed the Government to maintain certain restrictions and 
obligations204 to combat the pandemic in place until 19 March 2022 and, at the same time, the 
‘state of epidemic’ expired on 25 November 2021205. As a result, Länder could adopt certain 

195  Article 20 Basic Law.  
196  Articles 70 et seq. Basic Law.  
197  Proposals by the  Bundestag  can be submitted by (at least)  5% of its  members. In practice, most proposals 

emanate from the Government.  

198  Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, pp. 9-10.  
199  This  can  lead  to  the  impression  by  civil  society  organisations  that  consultations  are  a  mere  formality. 
Contribution  from  ENNHRI  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report  –  Germany,  p.  6.  A  specific  example  cited 
relates to the legislation surrounding the expiration of the national epidemiological situation (see also below) 
– contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 18.  

200  Stakeholders  have  e.g.  criticised  that  draft  legislation  might  only  be  shared  via  the  press  or  to  individual 
contacts  but  not  published  in  a  timely  manner  for  a  consultation  process.  Contribution  from  the  German 
Federal Bar for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 23.  

201  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 15.  
202  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 16.  
203  First Law on the protection of the population in cases of epidemic situations of national relevance.  
204  For example, the possibility to prescribe distancing, wearing of masks or presenting vaccination, recovery or 
testing certificates. Federal Parliament (2021), Follow-up rules on the occasion of the lifting of the epidemic 
situation.  

205  Federal  Ministry  for  Health  (2021)  Law  amending  the  Infection  Protection  Law  and  other  laws  on  the 
occasion  of  the  repeal  of  the  determination  of  the  epidemic  situation  of  national  importance.  Federal 
Parliament (2021) Follow-up rules on the occasion of the lifting of the epidemic situation.  

21 

 
                                                 
restrictive measures206 to the extent that there was a concrete epidemic danger and subject to 
the approval of the regional parliaments207. In 2021, a considerable share of the constitutional 
complaint  proceedings  concerned  measures  taken  to  combat  the  pandemic208.  In  the  period 
between March 2021 and February 2022, the Federal Constitutional Court received 465 new 
constitutional complaints against pandemic measures and decided on 318 such complaints209. 
The complaints against the restrictive measures adopted to combat the COVID-19 pandemic 
also constituted an important share of cases at the administrative courts210. On 19 November 
2021,  the  German  Federal  Constitutional  Court  ruled  on  a  number  of  constitutional 
complaints challenging  the constitutionality and  proportionality of the amendments  adopted 
in  April  2021  (the  so-called  ‘emergency  brake’)211,  and  which  had  expired  on  30  June 
2021212. Though the measures in the emergency brake constituted a strong interference with 
fundamental rights, the Federal Constitutional Court found that they were proportionate and 
in accordance with the German Basic Law213.  

Following formal commitments by Germany clearly recognising the primacy of EU law, 
the Commission has closed the infringement procedure concerning the judgment of the 
German Constitutional Court of 5 May 2020214. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, 
on 9 June 2021, the Commission had decided to send a letter of formal notice to Germany for 
violation  of  the  principles  of  autonomy,  primacy,  effectiveness  and  uniform  application  of 
Union law, as well as the respect of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union under Article 267 TFEU215. On 2 December 2021, the Commission announced that it 
had  closed  the  infringement  procedure,  in  light  of  the  strong  commitments  provided  by 
Germany in the reply to the letter of formal notice. In particular, Germany formally declared 
that it affirms and recognises the principles of autonomy, primacy, effectiveness and uniform 
application of Union law. It explicitly recognised the authority of the Court of Justice of the 

206  However,  the  Länder  could  not  adopt  curfews  or  a  general  preventative  closure  of  schools  and  day-care 
centres,  of  the  gastronomic  industry  or  of  the  retail  sector.  It  was  equally  not  possible  to  issue  a  general 
prohibition  of  religious  services  and  gatherings  or  sport  activities,  or  to  prohibit  travel  and  overnight 
accommodation. Federal Ministry for Health (2021), Law amending the Infection Protection Law and other 
laws on the occasion of the repeal of the determination of the epidemic situation of national importance.  
207  The  German  Bar  Association  welcomed  the  expiry  of  the  state  of  epidemic.  The  association  stressed  that 
after the expiry the Länder were still able to take executive decisions and called for a greater involvement of 
the regional Parliaments. Contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, 
p. 19. 

208  German Federal Constitutional Court (2022), 2021 Annual Report, p. 36.  
209  Written  contribution  received  from  the  German  Federal  Constitutional  Court  in  the  context  of  the  country 

visit, p. 2. 

210  For example, in the North-Rhine Westphalian administrative  courts, the  challenges against the  COVID-19 
restrictions  at  first  instance  in  2021  amounted  to  10 442  cases  received  (both  main  and  urgent  cases), 
whereas in 2020, 1 473 cases were received. The proportion of these cases in all new disputes at the North-
Rhine Westphalian administrative courts thus increased from about 3% in 2020 to 20% in 2021. At the same 
time, 664 cases (both main and urgent cases) were received by the  Higher Administrative Court of  North-
Rhine  Westphalia  in  2021,  compared  to  483  in  2020.  Higher  Administrative  Court  of  North-Rhine 
Westphalia (2022), Annual Report, pp. 12 and 20. 

211  This involved the automatic introduction of certain restrictive measures by federal law if a specific threshold 
of COVID-19 cases was reached over three days in a city or district See new §28b IfSG. Fourth Law on the 
protection of the population in cases of epidemic situations of national relevance adopted on 21 April 2021. 

212  Pursuant to Article 28b, paragraph 10, first sentence of the IfSG as applicable on 23 April 2021. 
213  German Federal Constitutional Court (2021), Constitutional Complaints on  the ‘Federal emergency break’ 

unsuccessful.  

214  European Commission (2021), December infringement package: key decisions.  
215  European  Commission  (2021),  June  infringement  package  –  key  decisions;  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report, 

Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, pp. 16-17.  

22 

 
                                                 
European Union, the fact that measures taken by EU institutions cannot be a direct object of 
review in constitutional complaints and that courts of the Member States are required to refer 
questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU, including a 
second  referral  if  necessary,  as  to  whether  an  EU  measure  would  exceed  the  EU 
competences, or risks violating the national identity of a Member State in disregard of Article 
4(2)  TEU.  The  German  Government  committed  to  using  all  the  means  at  its  disposal  to 
ensure  full  recognition  of  the  judicial  powers  assigned  to  the  Court  of  Justice  by  the  EU 
Treaties, in particular its power to issue binding and definitive rulings on the interpretation of 
EU law and the validity of EU measures.  

On  1  January  2022,  Germany  had  13  leading  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation216.  At  that  time,  Germany’s  rate  of  leading 
judgments  from  the  past  10  years  that  remained  pending  was  at  37%  and  the  average  time 
that the judgments had been pending implementation was 3 years and 2 months217. The oldest 
leading  judgment,  pending  implementation  for  6  years,  concerns  the  access  to  and  the 
efficient  functioning  of  justice  in  public  trial218.  On  1  July  2022,  the  number  of  leading 
judgments pending implementation remains 13219. 

The  appointment  procedure  for  the  director  of  the  Anti-Discrimination  Agency,  who 
had been in function ad interim for the past four years, has been reformed. As noted in 
the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  during  the  entire  last  legislative  period,  the  position  of  the 
director  of  the  Federal  Anti-Discrimination  Agency  had  remained  vacant220.  Following  an 
announcement in the coalition agreement221, Parliament adopted legislative amendments that 
entered  into  effect  on  28  May  2022  which  provide  that  the  head  of  the  agency,  who  was 
previously appointed by the Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, 
will now be elected by Parliament on proposal from the Federal Government and appointed 
by the Federal President, for a period of five years, thereby decoupling the mandate from the 
legislative period. The amendments also set out a number of qualification criteria and defines 
the  status  of  the  head  of  the  agency  as  the  independent  Federal  Commissioner  for 
antidiscrimination222. This amendment corresponds also to a previous proposal made by the 
advisory  council  of  the  agency223.  The  coalition  agreement  also  commits  to  provide  for 

216  The adoption of necessary execution  measures  for a judgment by the European  Court of Human  Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have  been taken.  Germany notes that it has submitted 
final Action Reports (and one Action Plan) in all of these cases.  

217  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases 
that  are  considered  pending  at  the  annual  cut-off  date  of  1  January  2022.  See  the  Contribution  from  the 
European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 44. 

218  Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 June 2016,  Madaus v. Germany, 44164/14 pending 

implementation since 2016. 

219  Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
220  The  outcome  of  the  selection  procedure  for  the  new  director  had  been  annulled  in  court  due  to  a  lack  of 
compliance with the constitutional principle of merit. 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule 
of law situation in Germany, p. 17.  

221  Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, p. 121. The Coalition Agreement also commits to ensuring the institution’s 

independence and adequate resources. 

222  Law on the amendment of the general anti-discrimination law of 23 May 2022. 
223  The  opinion  provides  for  an  election  of  the  director  by  the  Bundestag,  following  a  proposal  by  the 
Government, for a period of five years (disconnecting it from the legislative mandate), with a possibility to 

23 

 
                                                 
 
additional competencies and appropriate financial and human resources for the Federal Anti-
Discrimination  Agency.  As  regards  the  German  Institute  for  Human  Rights,  the  coalition 
agreement commits to increasing its financial and human resources, which corresponds to a 
long-standing  demand  of  the  Institute,  which  currently  often  relies  on  project-based 
funding224.  The  re-accreditation  of  the  Institute,  which  functions  as  the  National  Human 
Rights Institution, was deferred by the Sub-Committee on accreditation (SCA) of the Global 
Alliance of Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) for 18 months during the session in March 
2022.  In  its  deferral  decision,  the  SCA  in  particular  encouraged  the  German  Institute  for 
Human  Rights  to  advocate  for  amendments  to  its  mandate  that  would  strengthen  its 
protection mandate, including its capacity to monitor and have access to places of deprivation 
of  liberty225.  The  Institute  has  proposed  that  the  Federal  Parliament  change  its  rule  of 
procedures, to ensure that the Institute is invited ex officio to parliamentary hearings, instead 
of  relying  on  invitations  by  specific  parliamentary  groups,  also  to  avoid  any  appearance  of 
politicisation226.  

Civil  society  continues  to  face  practical  challenges  due  to  the  uncertainty  of  their  tax-
exempt  status,  while  a  reform  of  the  rules  has  been  announced.  While  civic  space  in 
Germany continues to be considered as ‘open’227, as noted in the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law 
Reports,  the  legal  uncertainty  related  to  the  political  activity  of  civil  society  organisations 
(CSOs)  with  tax-exempt  status  continues  to  be  a  challenge  in  practice228.  While  an 
administrative decree adopted in January 2022 provides clarifications on the current situation 
in  line  with  the  case  law  of  the  Federal  Finance  Court229,  stakeholders  continue  to  raise 
concerns  over  the  limitations  for  CSOs  to  engage  in  ‘political  activity’  while  maintaining 
their tax-exempt status230. In particular, certain associations may be unable to carry out their 
charitable purpose without use of political means231. In this context, civil society continues to 
report  about  cases  of  pressure  on  CSOs  by  political  actors  through  legal  action  and  threats 
related to their tax-exempt status232, which can lead them to refrain from taking any political 

be renewed once. The opinion also asks for details of the selection procedure to be regulated in the law on 
anti-discrimination, referring  also to Commission Recommendation 2018/951  on Standards for Equality in 
view  of  allowing  for  more  independence  of  the  Agency.  German  Federal  Anti-Discrimination  Agency, 
Advisory Council – Recommendations for a Reform of the procedure for the appointment of the Director.  

224  Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report – Germany, p. 4.  
225  Report and Recommendations of the Virtual Session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), 14-25 
March 2022. In addition, the SCA notes a number of points related to the selection and appointment of the 
head of the NHRI, the composition of the board of trustees, the term of office of the board of directors and 
the adequate funding of the institute.  

226  Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report – Germany, p. 4.  
227  Rating  given  by  Civicus,  Germany.  Ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed.  

228  2020 Rule of Law report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 12 and 2021 Rule of 

Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 17.  

229  Ministry of Finance (2022), Revision of the administrative decree on the Fiscal Code.  
230  Contribution  from  Allianz  für  Rechtssicherheit  für  politische  Willensbildung  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 
Report,  pp. 18-19.  Contribution  from  ENNHRI  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  5.  Contribution  from 
Civil Liberties Union for Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report – Germany, pp. 8-9.  

231  This  would  include  means  such  as  protests  or  petitions.  In  addition,  not  all  charitable  organisations  can 
identify  a  defined  charitable  purpose  in  the  tax  code  that  captures  their  activity.  Franet  (2022),  Country 
research  -  Legal  environment  and  space  of  civil  society  organisations  in  supporting  fundamental  rights  – 
Germany, p. 4. See also Contribution from Allianz für Rechtssicherheit für politische Willensbildung for the 
2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 18-19 and Contribution from Civil Society Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law 
Report, p. 9.  

232  This  can  e.g.  take  the  form  of  parliamentary  questions  asking  to  revoke  the  tax-exempt  status  of  the 
organisations working against right-wing extremism that have criticised individual political parties or their 

24 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
positions  or  engaging  in  advocacy  work,  and  have  started  to  systematically  document  such 
cases233.  The  coalition  agreement  includes  the  commitment  to  present  a  legislative 
amendment  that  would  clarify  that  charitable  organisations  can,  within  their  charitable 
purpose, conduct political activity and can also occasionally take political positions on other 
issues outside its main field of activity234. Council of Europe recommendations underline that 
any form of public support for NGOs should be governed by clear and objective criteria235. 
To support civil society, the new Government also intends to present a ‘democracy support 
law’  in  2023,  which  responds  to  a  demand  from  CSOs  to  create  a  more  sustainable 
framework  for  federal  funding  for  democratic  engagement236,  as  well  as  to  develop  a  new 
national strategy for engagement in cooperation with civil society237.  

actions.  Contributions  from  Allianz  für  Rechtssicherheit  für  politische  Willensbildung  and  from  Civil 
Liberties Union for Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report – Germany.  

233  An alliance of German civil society organisations has been formed to advocate for change in this area, which 
collects  examples  of  concrete  cases  of  such  pressure  on  CSOs  (Allianz  für  Rechtssicherheit  für  politische 
Willensbildung). See an anonymised list of examples of organisations affected by the loss of the tax-exempt 
status 
https://www.zivilgesellschaft-ist-gemeinnuetzig.de/beispiele-fuer-
threats 
gemeinnuetzigkeitsprobleme/.  

related 

here: 

or 

234  Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, p. 117.  
235  Recommendation Rec(2007)14 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the legal status of 

non-governmental organisations in Europe, para 58.  

236  Contribution  from  ENNHRI  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  report  -  Germany,  p.  5.  Position  Paper  by 

Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (2021) for the 2021 elections.  

237  Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, p. 117.  

25 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en. 

Abgeordnetenwatch  (2021),  ‘Many  representatives  breached  transparency  rules’  (‘Zahlreiche 
Abgeordnete 
Transparenzvorschriften’) 
https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/recherchen/nebentaetigkeiten/zahlreiche-abgeordnete-
verstiessen-gegen-transparenzvorschriften.  

verstießen 

gegen 

Allianz  für  Rechtssicherheit  für  politische  Willensbildung  (2022),  Contribution  from  Allianz  für 
Rechtssicherheit für politische Willensbildung for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

ARD (2022), Contribution from ARD for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

Bavarian  Ministry  of  Justice  (2022),  Press  statement  of  2  June  2022  on  the  Conference  of  Justice 
Ministers https://www.justiz.bayern.de/presse-und-medien/pressemitteilungen/archiv/2022/99.php.  

Bayrischer Rundfunk (2021), 'Mask deals – Tax investigations against Andrea Tandler' (Maskendeals 
-  Steuerermittlungen  gegen  Andrea  Tandler)  https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/maskendeals-
steuerermittlungen-gegen-andrea-tandler,SrUydO1.  

Bundesnetzwerk  Bürgerschaftliches  Engagement  (2021),  Position  Paper  by  Bundesnetzwerk 
Bürgerschaftliches  Engagement  for  the  2021  elections  (Engagementpolitische  Empfehlungen  des 
Bundesnetzwerk  Bürgerschaftliches  Engagement  (BBE)  für  ein  Regierungsprogramm  der  20. 
Legislaturperiode 
https://www.b-b-
(Langfassung)) 
e.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/06_Service/02_Publikationen/2021/2021-bbe-reihe-positionen-003.pdf. 

Bundesrat (2021), Draft Law  on strengthening courts in economic disputes  (Entwurf eines Gesetzes 
zur 
Wirtschaftsstreitigkeiten) 
Gerichte 
https://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/drucksachen/2022/0001-0100/79-
22(B).pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1.  

Stärkung 

der 

in 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor 2022. 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Germany https://monitor.civicus.org/country/germany/.  

Civil Liberties Union for Europe (2022), Contribution from Civil Liberties Union for Europe for the 
2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Civil  Society  Europe  (2022),  Contribution  from  Civil  Society  Europe  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 
Report. 

Commission  for  the  determination  of  concentration  in  the  media  sector  (KEK,  Kommission  zur 
Ermittlung  der  Konzentration  im  Medienbereich)  (2022),  Media  concentration  https://www.kek-
online.de/medienkonzentration.  

Conference  of  the  Justice  Ministers  (2021),  Further  development  of  video  hearings  in  court 
proceedings 
Gerichtsverfahren) 
der 
https://www.justiz.nrw/JM/jumiko/beschluesse/2021/Herbstkonferenz_2021/TOP-I_-1---
Videoverhandlungen.pdf.  

(Weiterentwicklung 

Videoverhandlung 

im 

Conference of the Justice Ministers (2021), Pact for the Rule of Law – Pact for the strengthening of 
justice 
Justiz) 
https://www.justiz.nrw.de/JM/jumiko/beschluesse/2021/Herbstkonferenz_2021/TOP-I_-14---Pakt-
fuer-den-Rechtsstaat.pdf.  

Stärkungspakt 

Rechtsstaat 

(Pakt 

den 

für 

- 

Conference  of  the  Justice  Ministers  (2021),  Urgent  need  for  reform  to  deal  with  mass  procedures 
(Dringender 
Massenverfahren) 
https://www.justiz.nrw.de/JM/jumiko/beschluesse/2021/Herbstkonferenz_2021/TOP-I_-11---
Dringender-Reformbedarf-zur-Bewaeltigung-von-Massenverfahren.pdf.  

Reformbedarf 

Bewältigung 

von 

zur 

26 

 
Conference of the Justice Ministers (2022), Pact for the Rule of Law – Pact for the Strengthening of 
Justice 
Justiz) 
https://www.justiz.bayern.de/media/pdf/top_i.14_-_pakt_f%C3%BCr_den_rechtsstaat.pdf. 

Stärkungspakt 

Rechtsstaat 

(Pakt 

den 

für 

– 

Conference  of  the  State  Parties  to  the  UN  Convention  against  Corruption  (2020),  Implementation 
Germany 
Review 
https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReviewGroup/E
xecutiveSummaries2/V2000216e.pdf.  

Executive 

Summary 

Group, 

– 

Correctiv  (2022),  Export champion  Germany  –  the corruption file  (Exportmeister  Deutschland:  Die 
Korruptions-Akte) 
https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/korruption/2022/03/10/exportmeister-deutschland-
die-korruptions-akte/.  

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Germany. https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte?years=2022&typeData=1&time=1653914309287.  

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2000), Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee 
of Ministers on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system. 

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2007), Recommendation Rec(2007)14 of the Committee 
of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  the  legal  status  of  non-governmental  organisations  in 
Europe. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2021),  Republic  of Moldova  - Joint  opinion  of  the  Venice 
Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of 
Europe on some measures related to the selection of candidates for administrative positions in bodies 
of self-administration of judges and prosecutors and the amendment of some normative acts (CDL-
AD(2021)046). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2022),  Opinion  no.  1073/2021  on  the  Introduction  of  the 
procedure of renewal of security vetting through amendments to the Courts Act (CDL(2022)005). 

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgment  of  24  November  2020,  AZ,  C-510/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2020:953.  

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 27 May 2019, Minister for Justice and Equality 
v OG and PI, Joines Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:456. 

Die  Zeit  (2021),  ‘BGH  must  deal  with  mask  affair’  (‘BGH  muss  sich  mit  Maskenaffäre  befassen’) 
https://www.zeit.de/news/2021-11/18/bgh-muss-sich-mit-maskenaffaere-befassen. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2022),  Flash  Eurobarometer  507:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. 

District  Court  Berlin  (2021),  International  chambers  in  the  District  Court  Berlin  (Internationale 
Kammern 
https://www.berlin.de/gerichte/landgericht/das-
gericht/zustaendigkeiten/internationale-kammern/artikel.1034131.php.  

Landgericht 

Berlin) 

beim 

European  Association  of  Judges  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  European  Association  of  Judges  for 
the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom  (2021),  Mapping  Media  Freedom  –  Monitoring 
Report 2021. 

27 

 
European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom,  Mapping  Media  Freedom  –  Country  profile: 
Germany. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Germany. 

European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Germany. 

Commission 

European 
decisions 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_21_6201?fbclid=IwAR1w6wbHhdcA5vxlq
XTohUjxcgF7mJbpSBxTXjxaNWXpMJ0MIzb9Zyuwv7I.  

(2021),  December 

infringement 

package: 

key 

European 
(2021), 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/INF_21_2743.  

infringement 

Commission 

June 

package: 

key 

decisions 

European Commission (2022), 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 9 June 2016, Madaus v. Germany, 44164/14. 

European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) (2021), Contribution from the 
European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Franet, German Institute for Human Rights (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space 
of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Germany, Vienna, EU Agency for 
Fundamental  Rights 
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-
related.  

German Association of Judges (2021), After the Pact is before the Pact  (Nach dem Pakt ist vor dem 
Pakt) 
https://www.drb.de/newsroom/presse-mediencenter/nachrichten-auf-einen-
blick/nachricht/news/nach-dem-pakt-ist-vor-dem-pakt.  

German Association of Judges (2021),  Contribution from the German Association of Judges for the 
2021 Rule of Law Report. 

German Association of Judges (2022),  Contribution from the German Association of Judges for the 
2022 Rule of Law Report. 

German  Association  of  Judges  (2022),  Gap  in  entry  level  salaries  remains  wide  (Schere  bei 
Einstiegsbesoldung 
https://www.richterbesoldung.de/besoldung-
versorgung/besoldungsmeldungen/meldung/news/schere-bei-einstiegsbesoldung-bleibt-weit-
geoeffnet.  

geöffnet) 

bleibt 

weit 

German Association of Judges (2022), Make use of all legal options in case of Meier (Alle rechtlichen 
https://www.drb.de/newsroom/presse-
Möglichkeiten 
mediencenter/nachrichten-auf-einen-blick/nachricht/news/alle-rechtlichen-moeglichkeiten-im-fall-
maier-ausschoepfen.  

Fall  Maier 

ausschöpfen) 

im 

German Bar Association (2021), Contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2021 Rule of 
Law Report. 

German Bar Association (2022), Contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of 
Law Report. 

German Federal Administrative Court, Summary of Case law on access to information of the Federal 
Intelligence Service https://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/pdf/080721U6A10.20.0.pdf.  

German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, Advisory Council - Recommendations for a Reform of 
the  procedure  for the  appointment  of the  Director  (Empfehlungen  zur  Änderung  des  Verfahrens  zur 
Besetzung 
https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/DE/ueber-
Leitung) 
uns/beirat/beschluesse_des_beirats/beschluesse_des_beirats_node.html.  

der 

28 

 
German  Federal  Bar  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  German  Federal  Bar  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 
Report.  

German  Federal  Constitutional  Court  (2021),  Constitutional  Complaints  on  the  ‘Federal  emergency 
break’ unsuccessful  (Verfassungsbeschwerden betreffend Ausgangs- und Kontaktbeschränkungen im 
Vierten  Gesetz  zum  Schutz  der  Bevölkerung  bei  einer  epidemischen  Lage  von  nationaler  Tragweite 
(„Bundesnotbremse“) 
erfolglos) 
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/bvg21-101.html.  

Federal 

Court 
German 
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Jahresbericht/jahresbericht_20
21.pdf;jsessionid=F5E6DF8DE85081613AE79D68540DC5BC.2_cid506?__blob=publicationFile&v
=8.  

Constitutional 

(2022), 

Annual 

2021 

Report 

German  Federal  Constitutional  Court,  judgment  of  the  First  Senate  of  25  March  2014,  1  BvF  1/11 
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/e/fs20140325_1bvf000111en.html.  

German Federal Constitutional Court, Written contribution from the German Federal Constitutional 
Court in the context of the country visit. 

German Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt) (2021), Federal overview on corruption 
2020 
2020) 
https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/JahresberichteUndLagebilder/Korrupti
on/korruptionBundeslagebild2020.html;jsessionid=CAD4A2CA52733E972C2ED787931E94B3.live6
02?nn=28078.  

(Bundeslagebild 

Korruption 

German Federal Finance Court (2022), Dr. Hans-Josef Thesling new President of the Finance Court 
Bundesfinanzhofs) 
neuer 
(Dr. 
https://www.bundesfinanzhof.de/de/presse/pressemeldungen/detail/dr-hans-josef-thesling-neuer-
praesident-des-bundesfinanzhofs/.  

Hans-Josef 

Präsident 

Thesling 

des 

German Federal Government (2022), Input from Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

German Federal Government, Reply to Parliamentary Question on Attacks on media professionals in 
im  Kontext  von 
the  context  of  pandemic-related  protests  (Angriffe  auf  Medienschaffende 
pandemiebezogenen 
20/949) 
https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/009/2000949.pdf.  

Drucksache 

(Bundestag 

Protesten) 

German Federal Ministry of Finance (2022), Revision of the administrative decree on the Fiscal Code 
(Änderung 
Abgabenordnung) 
https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/BMF_Schreiben/Weitere_Steuerth
emen/Abgabenordnung/AO-Anwendungserlass/2022-01-12-aenderung-des-anwendungserlasses-zur-
abgabenordnung-AEAO.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.  

Anwendungserlasses 

des 

zur 

German  Federal  Ministry  of  Health  (2021),  Law  amending  the  Infection  Protection  Law  and  other 
laws  on  the  occasion  of  the  repeal  of  the  determination  of  the  epidemic  situation  of  national 
importance  (Gesetz  zur  Änderung  des  Infektionsschutzgesetzes  und  weiterer  Gesetze  anlässlich  der 
Aufhebung 
Tragweite) 
epidemischen 
https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/ministerium/gesetze-und-verordnungen/guv-20-
lp/ifsg-aend.html.  

der  Feststellung 

nationaler 

Lage 

von 

der 

(Integrität 

German  Federal  Ministry  of  Interior  (2021),  Integrity  in  the  public  administration  –  annual  Report 
2020, 
2020) 
https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/veroeffentlichungen/themen/moderne-
verwaltung/integritaet-der-
verwaltung/integritaetsbericht2020.pdf;jsessionid=B6E3588608AF5FCBE802891194D5CCBB.1_cid
295?__blob=publicationFile&v=1  

Bundesverwaltung 

Jahresbericht 

der 

in 

– 

German  Federal  Ministry  of  Justice  (2020),  Business  Integrity  Strengthening  Act  (Gesetz  zur 
der 
Stärkung 

Integritär 

der 

29 

 
Wirtschaft)https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/DE/Staerkung_Integritaet_Wirts
chaft.html. 

German Federal Ministry of Justice (2020), Courts at federal level and of the Länder (Gerichte des 
Bundes 
Länder) 
https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF/Anzahl_der_Gerichte_des_Bundes_und_der_L
aender.pdf;jsessionid=2F6B80E7093D8B4F32366E2443C2259C.2_cid334?__blob=publicationFile&
v=3.  

und 

der 

German Federal Ministry of Justice (31 April 2022), Better protection for whistleblowers (Besserer 
Schutz 
Hinweisgeber) 
für 
https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2022/0413_Hinweisgeberschutz.html. 

German  Federal  Parliament  (2021),  Follow-up  rules  on  the  occasion  of  the  lifting  of  the  epidemic 
situation  (Folgeregelungen  an lässlich  der  Auf hebung  der  epi de mischen  Lage  beraten) 
https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw45-de-infektionsschutzgesetz-867578.  

German  Federal  Parliament  (2022),  Handbook  for  interest  representatives  to  register  in  the  lobby 
register  (Handbuch  für  Interessenvertreterinnen  und  Interessenvertreter  zur  Eintragung  in  das 
Lobbyregister) https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/informationen-und-hilfe/handbuch.  

German  Journalists’  Association  (2021),  Press  release  –  SLAPPS:  Against  the  abuse  of  claims 
https://www.djv.de/startseite/profil/der-djv/pressebereich-
(SLAPPS:  Gegen  Klagemissbrauch) 
download/pressemitteilungen/detail/news-gegen-klagemissbrauch.  

German  Journalists’  Association,  Right  to  information  under  press  law  from  federal  authorities 
(Presserechtlicher 
Bundesbehörden) 
Auskunftsanspruch 
https://www.djv.de/startseite/info/themen-wissen/presserechtlicher-auskunftsanspruch.  

bei 

German  Judges’  Magazine  (12/21).  Civil  Justice  at  the  beginning  of  a  deep  crisis  (Ziviljustiz  am 
Beginn einer tiefen Krise). 

German Judges’ Magazine (1/22), Interview with Supreme Court President Bettina Limperg.  

German  Judges’  Magazine  (3/22),  Progress  with  recruitments  at  the  Federal  Courts  (Personeller 
Aufbruch an den obersten Bundesgerichten). 

Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (2021),  Report and Recommendations of the 
Virtual Session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2021-
12/SCA-Report-October-2021_E.pdf.  

GRECO (2020), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Germany on preventing corruption 
and  promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law  enforcement 
agencies. 

GRECO  (2021),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Interim  compliance  report  Germany  on  corruption 
prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

Hessen,  Bayern,  Brandenburg,  Nordrhein-Westfalen,  Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,  Saarland, 
Niedersachen and Schleswig-Holstein (2021), Joint letter of 3 February 2021. 

High Administrative Court of Bavaria, judgment of 1 February 2022, 6 CE 21.2708. 

Higher Administrative Court of North-Rhine Westphalia (2022), Annual Report. 

Human  Rights  Watch  (2021),  Germany’s  New  Surveillance  Laws  Raise  Privacy  Concerns 
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/24/germanys-new-surveillance-laws-raise-privacy-concerns.  

Human Rights Watch (2022), Contribution from the Human Rights Watch for the 2022 Rule of Law 
Report. 

Legal Tribune Online (2022), Once again five years’ experience for leading a Federal Court (Wieder 
Bundesgerichts) 
fünf 

Erfahrung 

Führung 

Jahre 

eines 

für 

30 

 
https://www.lto.de/recht/justiz/j/bundesjustizminister-marco-buschmann-bundesgerichte-
bundesrichter-fuehrung-praesident-anforderung-erfahrung-korrigiert/.  

Lobbycontrol  (2021),  ‘Lobbying  undermines  democracy  –  Ten  theses’  (‘Lobbyismus  höhlt  die 
Demokratie  aus:  Zehn  Thesen’)  https://www.lobbycontrol.de/lobbyismus-hoehlt-die-demokratie-aus-
zehn-thesen/.  

Lobbycontrol (2021), ‘The lobby register is coming – Our evaluation’ (‘Das Lobbyregister kommt – 
Unsere Auswertung’) https://www.lobbycontrol.de/2021/03/das-lobbyregister-kommt/.  

LobbyControl, Lobbypedia – Cooling-off Period (Karenzzeit) https://lobbypedia.de/wiki/Karenzzeit.  

Lobbyranking of the Länder 2022 (Lobbyranking der Bundesländer 2022) https://lobbyranking.de/. 

New Judges’ Association (Neue Richtervereinigung), Position paper on the draft law on instructions 
from  2021  https://www.neuerichter.de/fileadmin/user_upload/fg_strafrecht/2021-
to  prosecutors 
01_FG_StrR_Stn_externe_Weisung_StA.pdf.  

OECD (2021), Working Group on Bribery - Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Phase 
4  -  Two  Year  Follow-Up  Report  Germany  https://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/germany-phase-4-
follow-up-report.pdf.  

Office  of  the  High  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  (2021),  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and 
Political  Rights  –  Concluding  observations  on  the  seventh  periodic  review  of  Germany 
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/357/46/PDF/G2135746.pdf?OpenElement.  

Open 
https://transparenzranking.de/static/files/ifg-ranking.pdf.  

Knowledge 

Foundation 

(2021), 

Transparency 

Ranking 

Council 

Press 
https://www.presserat.de/files/presserat/bilder/Downloads%20Jahresberichte/Jahresbericht2021-
vero%CC%88ffentlicht.pdf.  

(Jahresbericht 

Annual 

(2022), 

report 

2021 

2021) 

Reporters  without  Borders  (2022),  Close-up  view  Germany  (Nahaufnahme  Deutschland), 
https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/nahaufnahme/2022. 

Reporters without Borders (2022), Contribution from Reporters without Borders for the 2022 Rule of 
Law Report.  

Reporters  without  Borders  (28  October  2021),  RSF  and  Journalists  sue  against  ‘state  trojans’  (RSF 
und 
Staatstrojaner),https://www.reporter-ohne-
grenzen.de/deutschland/alle-meldungen/meldung/journalisten-klagen-gegen-staatstrojaner.  

Journalisten 

klagen 

gegen 

Reporters without Borders – Germany, https://rsf.org/en/country/germany.  

Rundfunkkommission  der  Länder  (2021),  Draft  discussion  paper  on  the  order  and  structural 
optimisation  of 
zu  Auftrag  und 
Strukturoptimierung  des  öffentlich-rechtlichen  Rundfunks)  https://www.rlp.de/fileadmin/rlp-stk/pdf-
Dateien/Medienpolitik/Synopse_MAEStV_Reform_OERR_Nov2021.pdf.  

service  broadcaster 

(Diskussionsentwurf 

the  public 

SPD,  The  Greens  and  FDP  (2021),  Coalition  Agreement  2021-2025  (Koalitionsvertrag  2021-2025) 
https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/974430/1990812/04221173eef9a6720059cc353d759a
2b/2021-12-10-koav2021-data.pdf?download=1.  

State Government of Rheinland-Pfalz (2022), Amendments to the State Media Treaty adopted - brand 
of  public  service  broadcasting  strengthened  (Änderungen  des  Medienstaatsvertrags  angenommen  - 
gestärkt) 
Rundfunks 
Markenkern 
https://www.rlp.de/de/aktuelles/einzelansicht/news/News/detail/aenderungen-des-
medienstaatsvertrags-angenommen-markenkern-des-oeffentlich-rechtlichen-rundfunks-ges/. 

öffentlich-rechtlichen 

des 

Tagesschau (2021), ‘Mask affair – kisses and commissions’ (Maskenaffäre – Bussis und Provisionen) 
https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr-wdr/emix-masken-provisionen-103.html  

Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. 

31 

 
Transparency  International  Germany  (2018),  Comments  and  Recommendations  on  UNCAC  Second 
Review 
Germany 
https://www.transparency.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Aktuelles/Stellungnahmen/2018/18-09-
10_Comments_and_Recommendations_UNCAC_Second_Review_Cycle.pdf.  

(Chapters 

Review 

Cycle 

and 

V) 

of 

II 

– 

Transparency International Germany (2021), ‘Ancillary income: Hundreds of thousands of euros from 
MEPs remained undiscovered for years’ (‘Nebeneinkünfte: Hunderttausende Euro von Abgeordneten 
blieben  jahrelang  unentdeckt’)  https://www.transparency.de/aktuelles/detail/article/nebeneinkuenfte-
hunderttausende-euro-von-abgeordneten-blieben-jahrelang-unentdeckt/.  

Transparency International Germany (2022), Contribution from Transparency International Germany 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

Transparency  International  Germany  (21  May  2021),  ‘More  than  20.000  euros:  Özdemir  has  also 
forgotten  to  report  special  payments’  (Mehr  als  20.000  Euro:  Auch  Özdemir  hat  vergessen, 
Sonderzahlungen  zu  melden)  https://www.transparency.de/aktuelles/detail/article/mehr-als-20000-
euro-auch-oezdemir-hat-vergessen-sonderzahlungen-zu-melden/.  

Transparency International Germany (24 May 2021), ‘Lauterbach reports fees belatedly’ (‘Lauterbach 
meldet  Honorare  nach’)  https://www.transparency.de/aktuelles/detail/article/lauterbach-meldet-
honorare-nach/.  

UN Human Rights Regional Office for Europe (OCHCR) (2022), Contribution from the UN Human 
Rights Regional Office for Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

UN Office on Drugs and Crime (2016), Country Review Report of the Federal Republic of Germany - 
Review by the Czech Republic and Denmark of the implementation by Germany of articles 15 - 42 of 
Chapter III “Criminalization and law enforcement” and articles 44 - 50 of Chapter IV “International 
cooperation” of the United Nations Convention against Corruption for the review cycle 2010 – 2015 
https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/CountryVisitFinalReports/2022_02_04_Germany
_Cycle_I_Country_Report_EN.pdf.  

UN  Office  on  Drugs  and  Crime  (2020),  Review  by  Greece  and  Croatia  of  the  implementation  by 
Germany  of  articles  5-14  and  51-59  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  against  Corruption  for  the 
review 
2016-2021 
https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/CountryVisitFinalReports/2020_11_06_Germany
_Final_Country_Report.pdf.  

cycle 

ZDF (2022), Contribution from ZDF for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

32 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Germany 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2022 with: 

  ARD 
  Association of Judges 
  Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (Network for Civil Engagement) 
  EU Affairs Committee of the Justice Ministers’ Conference 
  Federal Administrative Court 
  Federal Bar 
  Federal Constitutional Court 
  Federal Criminal Police, Anti-corruption unit 
  Federal Supreme Court 
  German Association of Judges 
  German Association of Journalists 
  German Bar Association 
  German Institute for Human Rights 
  German Publishers’ Association 
  German Union of Journalists 
  Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte 
 
  Lobbycontrol DE 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Ministry of Interior 
  Ministry of State for Culture and Media  
  Prosecution Service 
  Transparency International Germany  
  ZDF 

Joint Office of the Media Authorities 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International  
  Article 19  
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom  
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists  
  European Partnership for Democracy 
  European Youth Forum 
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 
  Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI) 
  Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa  
  Philea 
  Reporters Without Borders 
  Transparency International Europe 

ILGA Europe 
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) 
International Press Institute 

33